L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22-03-2010 passed by the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

The deceased-1st plaintiff (hereinafter referred to, as 'PW-1') filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, in respect of the suit schedule property, a plot of about 1100 sq. yards in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, or, in the alternative, for a decree, for refund of Rs.15,21,096-10 ps., with interest. During the pendency of the suit, PW-1 died.

Smt. D. Vasantha Kumari, the 2nd plaintiff, who is said to be the 2nd wife of PW-1, and respondents 3 and 4 herein (plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit), who are his son and daughter, respectively, through his first wife, were added as legal representatives. This appeal is filed by the 2nd plaintiff.

The facts pleaded in the plaint, in brief, are that the suit schedule plot was allotted by the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society (for short 'the Society') in favour of one,

Mr. J. Shashidhar, and the original allottee agreed to transfer the plot as well as his membership in the Society, in favour of the 1st defendant, (hereinafter referred to as 'DW-1'). A letter dated 29-06-1991 (Ex.A-1) is said to have been issued by the original allottee, in favour of DW-1. She, in turn, is said to have agreed to sell the plot to PW-1, for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, and accordingly, executed an agreement of sale (Ex.A-29), on 04-07-1992 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff, as nominee of PW-1 (much before she came to be brought on record as legal representative). It was also stated that the execution of agreement of sale was followed by submission of a letter and affidavit by DW-1, on 10-12-1994.

According to PW-1, the transaction could not be finalized, on account of certain organizational and administrative problems in the Society. It was further pleaded that in supersession of an earlier arrangement, DW-1 has agreed to sell the plot directly to PW-1, and accordingly addressed a letter dated 10-08-1996 to the society, (Ex.A-31), and filed affidavit on 28-08-1996 (Ex.A-32). PW-1 is also said to have filed his affidavit, Ex.A-33, expressing his willingness, on the same day.

PW-1 stated that after the uncertainties prevailing in the society subsided, they were informed that a sale deed would first be executed in favour of DW-1, and thereafter, she can execute a sale deed in favour of her purchaser. PW-1 is said to have arranged for finances, for payment of a) dues to the Society, b) purchase of stamps, and c) dues of property tax; in all about Rs.15,00,000/-.

A sale deed was executed by the Society in favour of DW-1 on 04-01-2002 (Ex.A-30). Thereafter, PW-1 addressed a letter dated 20-04-2002 (Ex.A-10) to the 2nd defendant, the husband of DW-1, calling upon him to arrange for execution of sale deed, in his favour. The 2nd defendant, however, issued a reply dated 04-05-2002 (Ex.A-14), stating that the agreement of sale, executed in the year 1992, in favour of Smt. D. Vasanta Kumari (2nd plaintiff), was just a measure of security for repayment of the amount, borrowed from PW-1. He has also stated that they were ready to pay the amount, and neither himself, nor his wife intend to sell the plot. This was followed by a notice/letter dated 04-09-2002 (Ex.A-16), equivalent to Ex.B-19, addressed to the2nd defendant. It was also pleaded by PW-1 that apart from payment of registration charges, he paid the property tax, for the plot in question. Alleging that the defendants 1 and 2 avoided execution of the sale deed, without there being any valid legal basis, the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, or for refund of the amount.

The defendants 1 and 2 opposed the suit, by filing the written-statement. It was pleaded that DW-1 never intended t