Defendants 5 and 6 in O.S.No.104 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tract Court), Medchal, are the appellants. They feel aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the first respondent.

2. The first respondent filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.02.2000, Ex.A.1, in respect of Ac.7-14 guntas of land situated at Mysammaguda, H/o.Gundla Pochampally village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, said to have been executed in his favour by respondent Nos.2 to 5 (defendant Nos.1 to 4). The relief was also claimed to the effect that the sale deeds dated 30.05.2002 (Exs.A.2 and A.5) executed in favour of the appellants herein, be declared as null and void.

2. It was pleaded that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 inherited the suit schedule property from late Pentaiah and they have agreed to sell the same to the first respondent, for a consideration of Rs.9 lakhs. He stated that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid as advance on 29.02.2000, under Ex.A.3, and on the same day, the agreement of sale, being Ex.A.1 was executed. A further sum of Rs.5 lakhs is said to have been paid on 09.04.2000, under Ex.A.4. It was alleged that inspite of repeated offers to pay the balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs and request for execution of sale deed, the respondent Nos.2 and 5 did not reciprocate. It was further averred that the respondents 2 and 3 have clandestinely and in violation of Ex.A.1, have executed sale deeds, Exs.A.2 and A.5, in favour of the appellants and that the same cannot be sustained in law.

4. The respondents 2 to 5 remained ex parte. The appellants alone contested the suit. They pleaded that Ex.A.1 was brought into existence with the collusion between the first respondent and respondents 2 and 5 only to defeat the rights of the appellants under Exs.A.2 and A.5. It was urged that Exs.A.2 and A.5 were initially executed by respondents 2 and 3 and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have executed deeds of ratification on 03.04.2004, Exs.B.5 and B.6. They further pleaded that ever since the date of sale, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

5. After the suit was decreed, the respondents 2 to 5 have executed sale deeds in favour of the first respondent. The latter, in turn, is said to have divided the land into plots and sold the same in favour of about 75 persons. The appellants filed A.S.M.P.No.485 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to implead them as respondents. The application was ordered and the purchasers are impleaded as respondents 6 to 82.

6. Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the suit presented by the plaintiffs, was not only untenable in law but also was defective. He contends that the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners was not prayed for, and at a later point of time, it was inserted. He contends that Ex.A.1 was brought into existence only with an attempt to cast doubt upon the legality and validity of the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants. Learned counsel submits that this is evident from the fact that no reference was made to Ex.A.1, in the notices that were exchanged between the parties. He also contends that the trial Court has drawn certain inferences, which are not at all supported by the pleadings or evidence. He further submits that Ex.A.1 is inadmissible in evidence, since it was not registered. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to certain documents such as the pattedar pass books and title deeds, presented by the first respondent, on the one hand, and appellants on the other hand, and submits that every attempt was made to defraud the appellants.

7. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, submits that the only persons, who could have disputed the execution or existence of Ex.A.6 are D.W.s 2 to 5 and they have chosen to remain ex parte. He contends that the appellants