L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

These two appeals arose out of the judgment and decree dated 23-02-2000 passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.S. No.643 of 1988.

2. The sole plaintiff in the suit preferred C.C.C.A. No.124 of 2000 and the 1st defendant therein preferred C.C.C.A. No.149 of 2000. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 24-04-1985 in respect of the suit schedule property, a plot of 2,000 square yards bearing Municipal No.1-11-256 at Begumpet, Secunderabad, or in the alternative to pass a decree for damages, in a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum.

5. The plaintiff pleaded that the 1st defendant and his son, the 2nd defendant, are the joint owners of the suit schedule property and they have executed the agreement of sale in its favour. It was alleged that consideration for the property was fixed at Rs.15.00 lakhs and that a sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid on the date of agreement. It was alleged that the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of sale deed, but in spite of repeated demands, the defendants did not come forward to receive the balance of consideration and to execute the sale deed.

6. The plaintiff has also pleaded that the defendants are under the obligation to clear the encumbrances over the property, obtain clearance certificate under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act”) and a clearance certificate under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act (for short “IT Act”). According to it, 30- 11-1985 was tentatively agreed to be the date for completion of the entire transaction. The plaintiff has also stated that its subsequent enquiries revealed that the defendants are indebted to various parties and the suit schedule property was either under mortgage or was offered as security. It was alleged that the plaintiff has also tried to use its influence with the parties to settle the claim vis-a-vis the property, but the defendants did not evince any interest. It was also pleaded that it was always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and that the default is on the part of the defendants.

7. Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. The 1st defendant has explained in detail, the circumstances under which the document, which the plaintiff treated as agreement of sale, has come into existence. He stated that his two sons have undertaken the activity of drilling bore-wells and in the process they have obtained loans from Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank and that the title deed in respect of the suit schedule property was deposited with the Union Bank of India. He stated that as many as three suits, being O.S. No.102 of 1983, 615 of 1984 and 769 of 1984 were filed by the banks against them and decrees were also passed. He stated that when steps were being initiated for obtaining attachment against the properties of their family, Athmaram Asrani, who is a director in the plaintiff company and person known to him, offered help, stating that he has good relationship with the administration with Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. It is stated that on the advice given by Asrani, two documents, purporting to be agreements of sale, were prepared, and in one document, he, the 1st defendant, alone signed on behalf of the parties of First and Second Parts, and in another document, he signed on behalf of the First Part, and Asrani on behalf of the Second Part. According to him, there was a specific understanding to the effect that they would be used before the banks to paint a picture that the property was being offered for sale. He has stated that in the clause pertaining to payment of consideration, blanks were left and without payment