Both appeals arise out of the two separate judgments and the subject matter of the appeals is a house property, which is first floor portion of the premises bearing No.209 of West Maredpalli, Secunderabad including the garage room with common rights.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.280 of 1998 which relates to the Transfer C.C.C.A.No.303 of 2007 is the defendant is O.S.No.257 of 1990 relating to C.C.C.A.No.17 of 2000, is the appellant in both the appeals.

The suit O.S.No.280 of 1998 was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-11-1978. According to the plaintiff, the value of the consideration was Rs.1,05,000/-and Rs.15,000/- was paid in advance on the date of agreement of sale and the balance was paid on 16-10-1986, 17-10-1986 as the 1/5th share of the plaintiff in the lands sold for a consideration of Rs.4,69,125/-was adjusted towards the sale consideration when the joint property was sold. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not execute the agreement of sale and consequently the present suit was filed.

The first defendant died and the second defendant was brought on record as legal representative and he filed a written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff is a lessee and he has occupied the schedule premises as a lessee. He also borrowed some amounts from the first defendant and his wife and suits were filed and decreed. The agreement of sale was also considered in those suits. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:-

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 15-11-1978 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the agreement of sale?

3. To What relief?

On behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and on behalf of the defendant DW.1 is examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B21.

After considering the evidence on record, the suit was dismissed.

The suit O.S.No.257 of 1990 was filed for recovery of possession of the property from the appellant herein and for damages claiming that the appellant herein was only a licensee. The defendant therein who is the appellant raised the same pleas as a purchaser of the property and on the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:-

1. Whether the first plaintiff purchased the suit property out of the funds from the joint business?

2. Whether the first plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the first floor of the premises and if so, the licence is revoked by the first plaintiff?

3. Whether the first plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant?

4. Whether the defendant perfected his right of residence by adverse possession?

5. Whether the first plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit property?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?

7. To what relief?

On behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and marked Exs. A-1 to A-16 and Ex.C-1 and on behalf of the defendant DW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.

After considering the evidence on record, the said suit was decreed.

Aggrieved by the said judgment CCCA No.17 of 2000 was filed.

Though the lower court should have tried the suits together in view of the contentions between the parties, however, the suits were tried separately and for the convenience and better disposal, both appeals were heard together and a common judgment is pronounced.

Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the agreement of sale pleaded by the appellant is true and as to whether he is entitled for the specific performance of the contract of sale?

2. Whether the decree of eviction passed by the lower court is not enforceable?

The parties are herein referred as arrayed in O.S.No.280 of 1998.

POINTS:-

Evidently, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased-first defendant was the owner of the property. The agreement