1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1203 of 1996 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the appellant. She filed the suit against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.09.1993. It was pleaded that the respondent, who is the owner of the suit schedule plot, offered to sell it to the husband of the appellant, for a sum of Rs.97,500/- and that an agreement was executed on 01.09.1993, entire consideration has been paid, and that the possession of the plot was delivered on the date of agreement itself.

2. According to the terms of agreement, the respondent was under obligation to procure the clearance from the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (for short ‘the Act’), within four months. In the event of his failure to do so, the husband of the appellant was entitled to procure the same, by deducting a sum of Rs.2,000/-, from the consideration. Link documents were also said to have been delivered. The husband of the appellant is said to have died on 01.09.1993. Thereafter, she got issued a legal notice dated 27.08.1996, calling upon the respondent to execute the sale deed.

3. A reply was issued by the respondent, denying the execution of agreement of sale. According to him, the husband of the appellant gave an amount of Rs.67,000/- to one Mr.A.C.Krishnaiah and that as a security for repayment of the amount together with interest, the document was obtained. Stating that the version of the respondent is not correct and that he is under obligation to execute the sale deed, the respondent filed the suit.

4. The respondent filed a written statement reiterating the contents of the reply got issued by him.

5. Through its judgment, dated 02.07.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit. The respondent filed A.S.No.227 of 2008 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was also allowed on 19.10.2010. Hence, this second appeal.

6. Sri A.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that once the respondent admitted the execution of the agreement, marked as Ex.A.1, hardly there exists any alternative for the Courts, except to decree the suit. He contends that the respondent was precluded from adducing any oral evidence, contrary to the contents of Ex.A.1. Learned counsel further submits that the letters, marked as Exs.B.1 to B.7, addressed to the respondents were in relation to a different transaction, and though the trial Court has taken correct view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree on certain assumptions, without proper basis. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon various judgments, in support of the contentions urged by him.

7. Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client has adduced cogent evidence, in support of his plea that Ex.A.1 was in relation to a loan transaction between the husband of the appellant and one Sri A.C.Krishnaiah and that the feeble attempt made by the appellant to overcome the purport of Exs.B.1 to B.7, did not fructify. He contends that the trial Court ignored some fatal defects in the case of the appellant, when it decreed the suit and that the lower Appellate Court has corrected the error. Learned counsel submits that there is a serious flaw on the part of the appellant, in as much as she did not enter the witness box and that the evidence of her G.P.A., cannot absolve her from proving her case. He further submits that PW.1, the G.P.A. of the appellant was the person behind the entire episode from the beginning and the plea put forward by him that there existed another transaction of loan was not at all proved. He contends that the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be granted, when there is serious doubt as to the bona fides about the transaction. He too cited precedents to buttress his contentions.

8. The suit filed by the appellant was the one for specific perform