These two second appeals are filed by the same person and are between the same parties and are interrelated. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

2. The appellant is the owner of land in Survey No.173/2 Ongole Rural. He entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent on 22.09.1989 in respect of 9 Gadies and 51 Square Feet (roughly about 80 Square Yards) of site in Ongole Town of Prakasam District. According to the terms of the agreement, the consideration was agreed to be paid at Rs.1,500/- per Gadi and a sum of Rs.500/-was paid as advance by the respondent. The balance of consideration was agreed to be paid within two months from the date of agreement and the respondent was under obligation to get the land measured. The land covered by the agreement abuts a piece of land that was assigned to the respondent by the Government.

3. In addition to the advance of Rs.500/-, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.5000/-on 05.01.1990 and four years thereafter, a further sum of Rs.1,500/-. The appellant got issued a notice, dated 01.03.2000, alleging that the respondent trespassed into his plot in 1995, without paying the balance of consideration, constructed a house thereon and did not vacate the same in spite of repeated requests. He demanded the respondent to vacate the premises, deliver possession of the vacant site and pay damages for illegal occupation of site at the rate of Rs.700/-per month. The respondent got issued a reply, stating that the house was constructed with the oral permission of the appellant and that the balance of sale consideration was not paid on account of the failure on the part of the appellant to get the site measured.

4. After receipt of the reply, the appellant filed O.S.No.899 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, for the reliefs of recovery of possession of the plot, recovery of a sum of Rs.25,200/-as past mesne profits and prayed for ascertainment of future profits. The respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. He virtually repeated contentions of his reply notice and stated that the house was constructed with the oral permission of the appellant.

5. Two years thereafter, the respondent filed O.S.No.174 of 2002 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, for relief of specific performance of contract, covered by the agreement of sale. He pleaded that he was ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration and to perform his part of the contract, and that the appellant did not get the land measured, much less, executed the sale deed. The appellant opposed the said suit by raising several contentions including the one of limitation. It was also stated that the respondent is not entitled for the relief of specific performance, on account of his not being ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that the respondent lacks bona fides.

6. O.S.No.899 of 2000 was decreed on 08.07.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.100 of 2004 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. O.S.No.174 of 2002 was dismissed by the trial Court on 12.10.2004. The respondent filed A.S.No.2 of 2005 in the same appellate Court.

7. Through common judgment, dated 02.08.2010, the lower appellate Court allowed both the appeals. The result was that O.S.No.899 of 2000 was dismissed and O.S.No.174 of 2002 was decreed. Hence, these two Second Appeals.

8. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the recitals in the agreement of sale, Ex.A1, are clear to the effect that the balance of sale consideration shall be paid within two months from the date of agreement and that the possession of the property would be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed. He submits that though time ceased to be essence of contract, on account of receipt of part of the consideration after the due date, the possession was not delivered at all to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the respo