This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 05-03-2007, passed by the Court of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.1586 of 2005.

2. The 151 respondent (for short 'the respondent') filed the suit, against the appellant, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16-08-2005. He pleaded that he is the owner of a Flat in the ground floor of premises, bearing No.7-1-414/A/22, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad, that the appellant is the owner of Flat, bearing No.B6/F2(LlG), in the first floor, and that when the same was offered for sale, he agreed to purchase it for a consideration of RS.6,25,000/•. It was stated that advance of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 25-07-2005, and on 16-08-2005, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid. An agreement of sale was said to have been executed on the same day, incorporating several conditions.

3. The respondent alleged that though he had two months time from the date of agreement for payment of the balance of consideration and for completion of the transaction, he came to know that the appellant was making attempts to sell the property, and accordingly, filed the suit on 01-09-2005. The appellant filed a written statement, denying the very execution of the agreement of sale. He pleaded that he borrowed a sum of RS.3,25,000/- for his family necessities from the respondent by mortgaging his flat, and that taking advantage of the same, the respondent fabricated the agreement of sale. Several grounds, such as absence of notice, and non-compliance with statutory conditions, were pleaded. Through its judgment, dated 05-03-2007, the trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

4. Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record from the correct perspective and though it was proved beyond any pale of doubt that the agreement of sale, marked as Ex.A-1, was fabricated and forged, a different view was taken. He contends that the plaint did not accord with the requirements under the C.P.C., nor did it fulfil the conditions incorporated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel further submits that the evidence adduced by the respondent, particularly, the deposition of P.W.3, is totally at variance with the contents of the plaint.

He contends that the decree under appeal cannot be sustained either on facts, or in law.

5. Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very fact that the appellant admitted the receipt of the amount from the respondent, discloses the genunity of transaction. According to him, the necessity to file the suit, within two weeks from the date of execution of EX.A-1 arose, on account of the steps initiated by the appellant and the notice got issued by his wife, which was marked as EX.A-4.

6. After taking into account the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. "Whether the agreement of sale dated 16-08-2005 is true, valid and binding on the 15t defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale 16-08-2005?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property?

4. To what relief?"

7. The evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent comprised of his own deposition, as P.W.1; the evidence of his nephew, as P.W.2, and of Mr. Mohammed Waheeduddin, as P.W.3. EX.A-1 is the original agreement of sale; EX.A-2 is the property tax bill, dated 01-06-2005, and the corresponding receipt was marked as EX.A-3. Legal notice, dated 30-08-2005, said to have been issued by the wife of the appellant, was marked as Ex.A-4; and reply thereto, as EX.A-5. EX.A-6 is the postal acknowledgment. The appellant deposed as D.W.1 and his son, who was mentioned as one of the witnesses in Ex.A-1, deposed as D.W.2. T