On 31.01.2006 the following order was made by this Court:

"Ground Nos.8 (a) to (e) raised substantial question of law. Admit."

The said grounds read as hereunder:-

(1) Whether the original agreement of sale stood proved through the secondary evidence in the form of Ex.A-2 and the question of stamp duty on the original does not arise?

(2) Whether the bar against receiving secondary evidence of unstamped documents extends to cases where the document is lost from the custody of the Court?

(3) Whether the plaintiff can be made to suffer on account of the loss of the document, which has been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer from the custody of the court on the principle of actus curiae neninem gravabit?

(4) Whether the defendant can raise an objection with regard to insufficiency of stamp having acquiesced in stamping the copy of the document on consent of both the counsel?

(5) Whether Ex.A-2 copy of the original document impounded can be looked into in view of the judgment reported in 1992(3) ALT 575?

2. This second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, and A.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

3. Defendant No.1-respondent No.1 died even during pendency of the suit and the legal representatives were brought on record. Appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit praying for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale, dated 28.9.1987, and for an alternative relief for refund of sale consideration of Rs.36,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled issues and additional issues, recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, D.W.1, marked Exs.A-1 to A-4, Exs.B-1 to B-10 and came to the conclusion that the appellant- plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal A.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, and the appellate court having formulated points for consideration at para 14, recorded reasons in detail at paras 15 to 47 and ultimately dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal had been preferred.

4. The substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal had been admitted already had been specified supra.

5. Contentions of Sri Venkateswarlu representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana: Sri Venkateswarlu learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the trial court and also the appellate court and would maintain that appellant-plaintiff placed voluminous oral and documentary evidence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, Exs.A-1 to A-4 and as against this evidence, the evidence of D.W.1, the second defendant, alone is available on record and no doubt Exs.B-1 to B10 had been marked. The learned counsel also would maintain that the execution of the agreement of sale is not in serious controversy. The defence taken is one of coercion. The same had not been established, since the details and particulars relating to coercion also had not been pleaded in accordance with Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel also would maintain that the fact of non-giving of the reply had been taken as a serious ground, but in the light of the explanation offered this ground also is unsustainable. The counsel also would further maintain that the main ground on which the suit for specific performance had been dismissed is that Ex.A-2, the photostat copy of agreement, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff is inadmissible in evidence and, hence, the suit for specific performance or the alternative relief on the strength of such document