L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The defendant in O.S.No.528 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the decree dated 02-02-2010 passed therein.

2. The appellant is the owner of the premises bearing No.6-1- ’42 at Khairatabad. The respondent is her immediate neighbour. The respondent filed the suit, stating that the appellant agreed to sell a bit of 80 sq. yards of land, in October 2004 @ Rs.12,000/- per sq. yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs and that, advance of Rs.1 lakh was paid on 19-10-2004 and Rs.50,000/- on 09-01-2005. Alleging that the appellant did not come forward to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed, the respondent filed the suit for specific performance of agreement.

3. The appellant filed the written-statement. She raised on objection as to the maintainability of the suit. According to her, the mother of the respondent approached her with a request to sell the suit schedule property. It is also stated that written agreement was entered into for sale of the property @ Rs.15,000/- per sq. yard, and a specific clause was incorporated in the agreement to the effect that the consideration must be paid within a period of three months and that if the entire consideration is not paid within that period, the advance amount shall stand forfeited, and that the appellant shall not be under obligation to refund the same. She stated that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid as advance and as against the balance of Rs.11 lakhs, only a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid in January, 2005 and that balance was not paid, in spite of repeated demands. She alleged that the respondent and his mother have sent certain hired goondas to her house and they have not only destroyed the original agreement of sale, by making a challenge that they would take the property without making only further payment, but also have taken away a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from her, forcefully. Herself and her unmarried daughter are said to have been tightened and that they did not even submit a complaint to the Police Station. It was also her case that one year thereafter, an attempt was made to grab the property, and in the process, the respondent got the appellant detained in the Police Station from 5.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. i.e. till midnight, on 19-04-2006, by using his influence.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit, as prayed for.

5. Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very filing of the suit was untenable, since neither any agreement of sale was referred to, nor a copy thereof was filed. He submits that even according to the averments in the plaint, the negotiations were made by the mother of the respondent, at a time when he was not even in India and no GPA was executed at all. He contends that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 were clear about the terms of contract, obviously because the agreement of sale was torn away and the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be extended to such persons.

6. Learned counsel further submits that from a perusal of Ex.A-6, reply notice, dated 21-05-2006. It is evident that the respondent was of the view that the appellant does not have any title to the property, and on that basis a complaint, alleging acts of cheating was filed in P.S. Safaibad, and the same was registered as Crime No.1 of 2006. He further submits that as late as on 21-05-2006, the respondent insisted on furnishing of title deeds and other documents, obviously expressing the view that unless the title is shown to be clear, they are not prepared to proceed with the transaction. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court proceeded on untenable lines in decreeing the suit.

7. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that no written agreement was executed between the parties and all the same, the existence of agreement of sale is not disputed, once the a