Both appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi in AS Nos.26 and 24 of 1988. AS No.26 of 1988 arises out of the suit OS No.318 of 1981 and AS No.24 of 1988 arises out of the suit OS No.322 of 1983. Both the suits were tried together and evidence was recorded in OS No.322 of 1983. SA No.536 of 1994 arises out of the judgment in AS No.26 of 1988; whereas SA No.561 of 1994 arises out of the judgment in AS No.24 of 1988.

2. The appellant herein filed the suit for specific perfoffi1ance of the contract and the brief facts in both the suits are that one Ch. Nagamma, who is examined as PW2, mother of the PW 1 and the mother of the defendants are sisters. The suit schedule property, which is said to be a vacant site, belonged to Nagamma (PW2). The suit OS No.318 of 1981 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2.4.1981 for Rs.10,000/- alleging that PWs. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.9,500/- was paid. It was also specifically pleaded in the suit as No.318 of 1981 that PW2 executed a registered Will in favour of PW 1 who is said to be residing with her, but subsequently for their need, the agreement of sale said to have been executed and though the appellant herein is ready and willing to perform the part of the contract, it was postponed and denied and consequently the suit for specific performance was instituted on 3.9.1981.

3. In the above suit PW2, who was only the original defendant, filed written statement denying the genuineness of the contract of sale and pleading that it was a fraudulent one and she did not receive any consideration and possession was also not delivered. According to her, she has executed a Will and thereafter executed a registered settlement deed in favour of PW 1, which is Ex.A1 dated 9.9.1981. Therefore, she pleaded for a dismissal of the suit for specific performance.

4. On the basis of the alleged settlement deed, PW 1 has filed the other suit as No.322 of 1983 for declaration of title and injunction and PW1 was also subsequently added as a party in as No.318 of 1981.

5. The appellant herein who is the defendant in as No.322 of 1983 filed a written statement reiterating the agreement of sale and also the right for specific performance and consequently challenging the gift deed.

6. As already stated above, after framing necessary issues, the trial Court after recording the evidence on both sides decreed the suit for specific performance and dismissed the suit filed by PW1. As against that PW 1 preferred appeals and both appeals were heard together and after consideration of the material evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge found that findings of the lower Court are not proper and consequently set aside the judgment in both suits and decreed the suit as No.322 of 1983 and dismissed the suit as No.318 of 1981. As against that second appeals were preferred.

7. Earlier, a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 3.2.2006 allowed both the appeals. As against that the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 17.9.2007 in Civil Appeal No.4312 of 2007 set aside the judgment and ordered for framing substantial questions of law and dispose of the appeals. After remand, the following substantial questions of law were framed.

(1) Whether the plaintiff in OS No.322 of 1983 has acquired valid title to the property from Nagamma and the decree granted by the lower appellate Court is legal and sustainable?

(2) Whether the plaintiff in OS No.318 of 1981 is entitled for the specific performance of the contract of sale executed by Nagamma and the plaintiff in as No.322 of 1983 is not bound by the agreement of sale and the judgment passed by the Court below is legal and sustainable?

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant also wanted another substantial question of law with regard to the judgment of the lower appellate Court and accordingl