Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1998 made in O.S. No.83 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Eluru, West Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for specific performance has been decreed, the third defendant in the lower Court preferred this appeal.

The parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience.

The first defendant Yerragogu Satyavathi was the original owner of the suit schedule property. Defendants 3, 7 and 8 are the sons of defendant No.1, defendants 4, 9 and 10 are the daughters of defendant No.1. The specific case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.4-56 cents at Rs.69,000/-per acre and having received an amount of Rs.50,000/-executed an agreement of sale in Ex.A1 on 19.05.1986. The further case of the plaintiff is that Exs.A3, A4 and A5 are the title deeds of defendant No.1 and those documents have been handed over to him on 19.05.1986. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,64,640/-on or before 28.02.1987 and defendant No.1 agreed to execute the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff or any other person nominated by the plaintiff. It is also agreed that before registration, the land should be measured and the sale consideration at Rs.69,000/-per acre to be paid basing on the total extent of land ascertained. In case if the plaintiff violates the conditions of the agreement, the advance amount will be forfeited and if the defendant violates the conditions, she would be liable for civil and criminal action in addition to her obligation to execute the conveyance and pay damages for breach of contract. By mutual consent, the time for execution could be extended.

Defendant No.8 Ravindra Mohan Rao, son of defendant No.1, Gogu Damayanti Devi, daughter of defendant No.1 and one Y. Phanindra Choudary (PW.2) attested the agreement of sale Ex.A1. Defendant No.8 died and his LRs defendants 15 to 17 are brought on record. Originally, the suit was filed against defendants 1 to 3, but subsequently after the death of defendant No.1, defendants 4 to 10 were added as LRs of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 claimed that defendant No.1 executed an agreement of sale dated 19.05.1986 in his favour. After the death of defendant No.2 his LRs defendants 11 to 14 were added.

Since defendants 11 to 14 did not file any appeal and there is nothing on record to show that defendant No.2 or his LRs filed suit for specific performance both the learned counsel have agreed that there is no need to refer to the contentions of second defendant or with regard to findings on the alleged agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.2. Now the main dispute is between the plaintiff and the third defendant.

The reasons and circumstances for selling the land as seen from the recitals of Ex.A1, assigned by defendant No.1 are that she was not getting sufficient income from the suit schedule land and she was intending to purchase immovable property at some other place for the benefit of her family. The further case of the plaintiff is that as defendant No.1 was in need of money he paid Rs.5,200/- on 15.08.1986 and Rs.40,000/-on 04.11.1986 and these payments are endorsed on the back of Ex.A1 agreement of sale which are marked as Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 respectively and defendant No.1 and defendants 8 and 9 acknowledged these endorsements.

The plaintiff also claimed that he paid Rs.10,000/-on 26.11.1986 when defendant No.1

was in need of money in connection with the marriage of her grand daughter. However, he neglected to get the same endorsed on the back of Ex.A1 agreement of sale.

It is also his case that he had been demanding defendant No.1 to get the land measured and to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute registered sale deed from 0