1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.09.1989, being O.S.No.35 of 1995 by judgment and decree dated 28.09.2000.

2. Since it is a plaintiff’s appeal the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The material facts are as follows:

3. Under Ex.A1 dated 09.08.1989 the defendant agreed to sell the schedule property, which is approximately 100 gadis, [1 Gadi = 8 sq. yards and thereby the approximate area covered under Ex.A1 agreement is about 800 sq. yards] to the plaintiff at Rs.1,500/- per gadi. The English translation of the original agreement in Telugu, which is certified by both the learned counsel, as correct, is considered during the hearing of this appeal. The essential ingredients of the agreement are as follows.

4. As per the recitals of the said agreement, the said land belonging to the ancestors of the defendant, which is in his absolute possession and enjoyment, was agreed to be sold at Rs.1,500/- per gadi and Rs.20,000/- was received as advance on the date of agreement. The defendant, further, agreed to execute the registered sale deed or sale deeds in favour of plaintiff or any of her nominees on full payment of balance price in two months after getting the land measured at the expenses of the defendant and in presence of the plaintiff, as desired by the plaintiff and the possession shall be handed over to the plaintiff either in a single transaction or more transactions. If the balance amount is not paid in time, the plaintiff was required to pay interest at Rs.1.50 ps. and then obtain the deed or deeds from the defendant. Then on 22.09.1989 the plaintiff made further payment of Rs.22,500/- through Chilakapati Venkayamma and the defendant was requested to execute a registered sale deed in favour of said Venkayamma for 15 gadies. On 05.10.89 the plaintiff made further part payment of Rs.27,000/- through Sri. Perugu Brahmananda Rao whereupon the defendant executed another sale deed covering 18 gadis in favour of Brahmananda Rao. The said payment dated 22.09.1989 is recorded on the reverse of Ex.A1, which is separately endorsed and marked as Ex.A4 and further payment dated 05.10.1989 is separately endorsed and marked as Ex.A5. Thus, as against Rs.94,500/- paid by the plaintiff till the date of plaint, the defendant had executed sale deeds to the extent of 33 gadis and according to the plaintiff, the balance area of 67 gadis remained to be conveyed by the defendant.

5. The plaintiff alleges in the plaint that she demanded the defendant to execute a sale deed with respect to 67 gadis but the defendant evaded. It is alleged that the defendant consented the plaintiff to occupy and use the portion of remaining land stating that at the time of registration measurement will be taken and entire site of 67 gadis as per the agreement will be given possession of. Meanwhile alleging that the plaintiff has encroached on a strip of site on the Southern extreme end of the balance land, the defendant filed O.S.No.43 of 1991 before the District Munsif Court, Ongole against the plaintiff. The plaint in the said suit is marked as Ex.A14 and the said suit was for recovery of possession of a strip of site of about 5’ width on the Southern side. The plaintiff, further, alleged that while making endorsements Exs.A4 and A5 with respect to 33 gadis conveyed thereunder the defendant fraudulently mentioned the extent of the land under the schedule as 77½ gadis and 72½ gadis respectively, taking advantage of the illiteracy and absence of the plaintiff at the time of the endorsements and registration of said sale deeds. The plaintiff alleged that the said endorsements and the reduced area of site from 100 gadis to 77½ gadis and further to 72½ gadis were made by the defendant in Exs.A4 and A5 with a view to reduce the land agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff. Thereafter, there was exchange of notices between the parties commencin