(1) ON 26-6-1998, this Court made the following order: "ground No. 1 (a) to (c) is the substantial question of law to be gone into. Hence, admit".

( 2 ) THE substantial questions of law which had been pointed out and argued in elaboration by the Counsel on record Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana representing the appellant and Sri Chandra Shekar, representing the contesting respondents, are as hereunder :

1. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the appellate Court are not vitiated for non-framing of proper points for determination as required by Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?

2. Whether the agreement holder is not entitled to defend his possession under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 though title to the property had not been vested in him ?

3. Whether it is necessary under the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to prove a document though the execution of it was admitted ?

( 3 ) THIS Court in C. M. P. No. 11138/98 on 26-6-1998 ordered: "status-quo as on today with regard to possession of the plaint schedule property shall be maintained until further orders".

( 4 ) SRI Addepalli Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the substantial questions of Law specified supra and would maintain that for the applicability of the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, distinction cannot be drawn between plaintiff and defendant. The Counsel would submit that even if the claim of relief of specific performance is barred by limitation, since such defence can be putforth, such party can protect his possession either as plaintiff or as defendant and a distinction cannot be drawn in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Counsel would maintain that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and another Vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by L. Rs. and others the views expressed by the learned Judges of this Court may not be the correct view since the protection of possession had been specifically dealt with in the decision of the apex Court specified above.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Chandra Shekar, the learned Counsel representing respondents 1 to 5, the contesting respondents, had pointed out to the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that even on facts, the contesting respondents are bound to succeed and the Second Appeal to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would submit that there is no serious controversy between the parties that on the strength of an agreement of sale, simply relief of perpetual injunction was prayed for and the relief of specific performance had not been prayed for and when that being so, in the light of the views expressed by this Court in Mohd. Jahangir Vs. M/s. Mallikharjuna Co-op. Housing society Ltd. , rep. by its Secretary, G. Sambasiva Rao and K. Venkata Rao and others Vs. Sunkara Venkata Rao, the plaintiff definitely is not entitled to such protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act 1963.

( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel.

( 7 ) THE parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in o. S. No. 140/84 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Razole for the purpose of convenience.

( 8 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff being aggrieved of the reversing Judgment and Decree made in A. S. No. 9/95 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Razole had preferred this Second Appeal. The plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. No. 140/84 as against the defendants praying for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 and their men from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with fruit bearing coconut trees and other trees and also for costs of the suit. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder