The appeal originally filed by the 1st defendant and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff on 04-04-2006 and 15-12-2006 respectively arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.15 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, dated 10-12-1993.

2. The factual back drop of the case is that the plaintiff filed the suit originally against the 151 defendant alone for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27-10-1982 in respect of Ac.18-09 guntas in S.Nos.306 and 310 of Sankarapally. The plaintiff claimed that the 151 defendant already sold away the remaining land of Ac.2-00 in S.Nos.306 and 310 and the plaintiff, who desired to have an agricultural farm and who already purchased lands nearby from others, paid Rs.5,000/- as earnest money. The 1st defendant told that E.P. No.43 of 1981 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of more than Rs.25,000/- and O.S. No.81 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chevella filed by his brothers for partition, were pending. The partition suit was subsequently dismissed and the said cases were specifically referred to in the agreement. E.P. No.43 of 1981 could not be finalized due to establishment of separate Courts in Ranga Reddy District and transfer of pending proceedings, though the plaintiff was demanding to finalise the sale and was ready and willing to pay the amount required for closing the execution proceedings. The 1 sl defendant was explaining the delay to be due to dislocation of pending cases, which the plaintiff believed and as the 151 defendant was trying to negotiate with third parties, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 30-01-1985, which was avoided by the 151 defendant. Then the plaintiff gave a public notice in Deccan Chronicle dated 03-02-1985 and Eenadu dated 04-02-1985. The plaintiff paid Rs.5,000/- out of Rs.l,09,350/- at Rs.6,000/- per acre and the details of E.P. No.43 of 1981 would be known to the 151 defendant alone. The plaintiff was willing and ready to pay the balance to the 1st defendant or to deposit into Court and hence, he filed the suit for specific performance and if for any reason the same could not be granted, he was claiming damages estimated at Rs.50,000/-.

3. The suit was subsequently amended impleading the 2nd defendant and contending that the 1st defendant sold Ac.4-00 out of the suit land to the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed No.8466, dated 24-12-1985 during the pendency of the suit. The sale is hit by 1st pendens and hence, the alienation be declared as null and void. The 2nd defendant and any third party-alienees from or through him get no title or interest in respect of the suit schedule.

4. The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that the 1st defendants brothers never filed a suit for partition against him and the 1st defendant himself filed injunction suit in respect of the suit survey numbers against his brothers in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Chevella, which was decreed. The plaintiff did not pay the balance of sale consideration in spite of demands to meet the family needs and necessities of the 1st defendant, who met him along with Papi Reddy and Sudhakar Reddy, in whose presence the plaintiff had, in fact, demanded to return the earnest money of Rs.5,000/- and committed breach of contract claiming that the suit property was involved in multifarious litigations and the 1st defendant is not competent to execute an agreement. The plaintiff failed to discharge the execution petition debt as agreed and as the plaintiff did not meet the 1st defendants family expenses as promised, the 1st defendant suffered loss and misery, more so, as his wife was suffering with heart disease. E.P. No.43 of 1984 is pending in Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Ranga Reddy District and the plaintiff can file a suit only after the closure of the execution petition. The 1st defendant was unaware of any newspaper publication being a