The suit for specific performance, being O.S.No.91 of 1996, on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, filed by the first respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff), was decreed on 05.12.2003 directing the appellant herein (hereafter called, first defendant) to execute sale deed for House No.1-5-266 (new) situated at Kaman Road, Karimnagar, and further directing first defendant to induct the plaintiff into possession of the eastern portion of the suit house by evicting the tenant. The second respondent herein (hereafter called, second defendant) is statedly the person to whom first defendant and his brother, Baddam Ram Reddy, sold their respective shares in the suit house in February and April 1986. For this reason, the second defendant was added as proper and necessary party.

2. Plaintiff is related to first defendant. He is son-in-law of the elder sister of the first defendant. Admittedly, he has been staying in the western portion of the suit house very much prior to commencement of the dispute. Be that as it is, the plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the suit house under agreement of sale dated 20.04.1993 for sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- duly paying a sum of Rs.61,200/- as advance and agreeing to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.58,800/- within a period of one year, and obtain regular registered sale deed. According to him, possession was also delivered to him. He further alleged that since one year prior to filing of the suit, i.e., 23.11.1994, he had been demanding first defendant to execute sale deed, in vain, and hence he filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale directing the first defendant to execute the registered sale deed after accepting balance of sale consideration and for consequential permanent injunction.

3. Initially, the second defendant was not arrayed as a party to the suit. First defendant filed the written statement denying the execution of agreement of sale and alleged that the same is forged. He further stated in his written statement that he along with his brother, Ram Reddy, constitute joint family, that in 1980 there is a partition between them, in which, Ram Reddy got eastern portion and he got western portion, that on 14.02.1986 Ram Reddy sold his share in the suit house to second defendant, that subsequently, on 14.04.1986 first defendant also sold his share of the property to the second defendant, and that plaintiff is not in possession of the property. The allegation of the plaintiff that he made a demand on the first defendant for execution of sale deed was denied specifically alleging that plaintiff never demanded specific performance of forged contract of sale. After his impleadment, the second defendant filed written statement on the same lines. He also further alleged that after purchasing the property from Ram Reddy in 1986 he is in possession of the eastern portion.

4. Based on the rival pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed five issues on 26.06.1995. These were recast on 18.02.1999, which are as below.

1. Whether the agreement of sale Dt.20.4.1993 executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendant No.1?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule house in pursuance of agreement of sale Dt.20.4.1993?

3. Whether the defendant No.2 was in possession of suit schedule house, if so, under what capacity?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract Dt.20.4.1993 and permanent injunction, as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

5. During the trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3, who, allegedly attested the suit agreement were also examined. Exs.A.1 to A.17 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the suit agreement of sale, and Exs.A.2 to A.17 were produced to prove the possession. The first defendant came to the witness box as D.W.1, and second defendant was examined as D.W.4. The brother of the first defendant was examined as D.W.3