S.V. Bhatt, J.

These two appeals are directed against the decree and judgment dated 12-12-1996, in O.S.No.1334 of 1989, on the file of the V additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in O.S.No.1334 of 1989.

O.S.No.1334 of 1989 was filed for the relief of specific performance of an oral agreement of sale, in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit and denied the relief of specific performance. However, a decree was passed to the effect that the defendants shall refund a sum of Rs.5,000/-, said to have been received by them towards advance, with interest. While the plaintiff filed CCCA No.25 of 1997, feeling aggrieved by the denial of relief of specific performance, defendants filed CCCA No.43 of 1997, challenging the decree, directing them to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/-.

The facts pleaded by the parties, in brief, are that the premises of the suit schedule properties were original held by Khan Bahadur Abdul Kareem Babu Khan. He, in turn, leased the premises to the plaintiff, several decades ago. In the partition made, as a result of the decree, passed in O.S.No.38 of 1964, the property fell to the share of the defendants, and the tenancy was attorned to them.

The defendants filed O.S.No.901 of 1985 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of eviction of the plaintiff from the premises, and for mesne profits. During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. It was pleaded that he entered into oral agreement of sale with the predecessor-in-title of the defendants for a sum of Rs.1,62,000/-, and a sum of Rs.5,000/-was paid, as advance. He pleaded that being the successors-in-title, the defendants are under obligation to convey the property. An allegation was also made to the effect that the defendants have also agreed to execute the sale deed, at one point of time, for a sum of Rs.14 lakhs.

The defendants opposed the suit, by filing written-statement. It was pleaded that the so-called oral agreement to sell, that too, by the predecessors, was a fictitious one, and that at no point of time there was an agreement to sell the property. They further pleaded that the present suit was filed only as a counterblast, to O.S.No.901 of 1985, filed for eviction. A specific plea was raised to the effect that, even otherwise, the suit is barred by limitation.

O.S.Nos.901 of 1985 and 1334 of 1989 were clubbed. Through common judgment dated 12-12-1996, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.901 of 1985 and dismissed O.S.No.1334 of 1989. CCCA No.23 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff herein against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.901 of 1985 was dismissed by this Court through a separate judgment, today itself.

Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has proved the existence of oral agreement by filing a receipt for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, marked as Ex.B-1, and once the trial Court accepted that the payment under Ex.B-1 is true, it ought to have decreed the suit for specific performance, instead of directing the defendants to refund it. He further submits that the very fact that the plaintiff was permitted to remain in possession for so many decades, discloses that the defendants and their predecessors-in-title acknowledged the existence of agreement of sale.

As observed in the preceding paragraphs, both the appeals arise out of judgment and decree in O.S.No.1334 of 1989. Based upon the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration :

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of the contract of agreement of sale?

2. Whether the suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.901/85 seeking eviction, arrears of rent and damages against plaintiff is as counter blast suit?

3. Whether the suit is barred b