The appellant filed O.S.No.75 of 1994 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. He pleaded that the 1st respondent is the absolute owner of house bearing No.9- 7-86, Yellambazar, Warangal, with appurtenant land of 100 sq. yards; having inherited the same from her parents.

He stated that the 1st respondent executed an agreement of sale dated 02-04- 1986, agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was said to have been received by the 1st respondent, as part of the consideration and delivered possession. The balance of Rs.35,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration. He pleaded that subsequent to the agreement, he paid a sum of Rs.7,700/-, on 10-06-1987, and Rs.9,300/-, on 30-04-1990, respectively. He complained that when he approached the 1st respondent, on 30-11-1992, with the balance of consideration, and requested for execution of sale deed, she did not agree, and started demanding additional amount. The matter was said to have been referred to the elders on 31-01-1993, and ultimately, the appellant approached the Trial Court for the relief of specific performance.

The respondents filed a written-statement, denying the allegations in the plaint. They pleaded that the property was owned by the daughter of the 1st respondent (sister of the 2nd respondent), on the basis of a will, said to have been executed by the actual owner, the mother of the 1st respondent. The respondents pleaded that certain amount was borrowed by them from the appellant, due to their close relationship, and that taking advantage of the blank signed papers, the agreement of sale was executed.

The 2nd respondent died during the pendency of the suit, and the 1st respondent alone contested the matter. The Trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment dated 30-04-2004. The 1st respondent filed A.S.No.112 of 2004 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Warangal, against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal through judgment dated 04-08-2007. Hence, this Second Appeal.

Smt. P. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant proved the execution of agreement of sale and payment of amount thereunder, and there was no basis for the lower Appellate Court for reversing the decree of the Trial Court. She contends that though the respondent tried to disown the property, she failed to prove the alleged will, said to have been executed by her mother, in favour of her daughter. She further submits that once the signature on the agreement of sale and payment of amounts to the respondent are not disputed, a clear case is made out for specific performance of the decree, and that the lower Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the decree of the trial Court.

Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant, as PW-1, categorically, admitted several facts, which clearly established that the agreement of sale, Ex.A-1 is not genuine. He further contends that the evidence of PW-2 is equally shaky, and the lower Appellate Court examined the matter from the correct perspective. The facts, that led to the filing of the suit, have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The claim for specific performance of an agreement of sale was resisted by the respondent, on two grounds, viz., that the property does not belong to her, and that the agreement of sale is a forged one. The appellant deposed as PW-1, and a witness to the agreement of sale, Ex.A-1, was examined as PW-2. In addition to the agreement of sale, the appellant filed two receipts, Exs.A-2 and A-3. On her part, the respondent deposed as DW-1, and another witness was examined as DW-2. The Trial Court framed as many as 9 issues. Issues 1 to 5 covered the controversy relating to ownership o