This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27-9-2001 passed in AS.No. 353 of 1999 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16-9-1998 passed in OS.No. 5085 of 1994 by the learned X-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Venkata Raghu Ramulu, the learned counsel for the appellant and none appeared on behalf of Sri M.V.Ramana, the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05-09-1980. The agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, who are brothers, is in respect of Flat No.B-12/4-F, situated at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. The said flat was allotted to the defendant by the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Board under lease-cum-sale scheme dated 22-01-1970 and the agreement, is marked as Ex.A-1. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the schedule mentioned flat for total consideration of Rs.42,000/-. There is no dispute that an amount of Rs.42,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. However, it is a matter of record that though it was stipulated in Ex.A-1 agreement that the defendant has to execute registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration within three months from the date of agreement, it could not be implemented because the price received for registering the said plot by the A.P. State Housing Board was increased, the defendant had not complied with the requirement and some instalments were due to the A.P. State Housing Board. For the said reasons both the parties have entered into an agreement on 01-10-1982. In the agreement, the defendant endorsed in his own hand writing that he received a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-to the A.P. State Housing Board, which was due from the defendant. If any amount becomes due in his name for the said flat in addition to Rs.12,000/-, the entire amount has to be paid by the plaintiff only but not by the defendant. The plaintiff was put in possession of the flat in question in the last week of January 1981 and he paid some instalments to the A.P. State Housing Board.

4. According to the defendant, an amount of Rs.37,455/-was to be paid towards instalments, he asked the plaintiff to pay the said amount on his failure the defendant himself paid the said amount and issued a legal notice dated 16-07-1984 stating about the default committed by the plaintiff and the agreement of sale between them stood cancelled.

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant before the courts below as well as before this Court that the total consideration as per Ex.A-1 agreement is Rs.42,000/- which was admittedly paid by him, and therefore, he is no longer liable to pay any amount towards the sale consideration. However, it has been specifically contended by the defendant that as agreed under the subsequent agreement, the plaintiff is liable to pay the entire dues to the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Board in addition to the amount, which was paid under agreement of sale. The fact remains that the defendant paid Rs.37,445/- after the demand made by the A.P. State Housing Board. The version of the plaintiff is that the letter demanding payment of Rs.37,445/-was addressed to the defendant, the defendant did not disclose the said fact to the plaintiff but he paid the amount of Rs.42,435/-.

6. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding to the effect that the plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he refused to pay an amount of Rs.37,455/- to the A.P. State Housing Board, which was due towards instalment in respect of the schedule mentioned flat, which was paid by the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction.

7. In the second appeal, it has been contended by the learned counsel for th