This second appeal arises out of a bit complicated set of facts, which are stated below in the permissible limits of brevity.

2. OS No.47 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, gave rise to this second appeal.

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

4. The sole plaintiff is the appellant. One Sri Kuppam Govinda Reddy had two wives, namely Venkatamma and Sanjeevamma-1st defendant, who died during the pendency of the suit and represented by her daughter-Palamangalam Rajamma, the 8th defendant herein. Govinda Reddy had a son, by name, Elumalai Reddy, through Venkatamma. During the lifetime of Govinda Reddy, he had some disputes with one of his wives, the 1st defendant, and their daughter. He filed OS No.10 of 1965 in the Court of Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Chittoor, for declaration to the effect that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property mentioned therein. Items 1, 2 and 3 of the present suit schedule were shown as items 2, 4 and 5 in that suit. A decree was passed in OS No.10 of 1965 to the effect that the 1st defendant shall have a right of maintenance against item No.2, and that Govinda Reddy is the actual owner in respect of the remaining property. The 1st defendant filed AS No.106 of 1971 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chittoor. During the pendency of the suit and appeal, Govinda Reddy died and his son, Elumalai Reddy and the 1st defendant entered into compromise. The appeal was dismissed.

5. Elumalai Reddy sold items 2 and 3 in the present suit schedule in favour of one Mr. Markandeya Naidu and from him Sri B. Narayana Chetty, purchased those two items.

6. The 1st defendant filed OS No.98 of 1999 in the Court of District Munsif, Nagari, against Narayana Chetty, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of all the three items of property. That was, in turn, compromised. The 1st defendant executed two deeds of relinquishment, dated 16.8.1995, marked as Exs.A2 and A3, in respect of those three items of property. Narayana Chetty died and his legal representatives, defendants 2 to 6, in the present suit executed a sale deed dated 19.8.1995 (Ex.B1) in favour of the sole plaintiff that is the appellant herein.

7. Alleging that the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale, in her favour on 19.5.1990 (Ex.A1), the sole plaintiff filed the present suit i.e. as No.47 of 1995, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, in respect of all the items of property. She pleaded that having executed the agreement of sale, the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property and received a total consideration of Rs.54,000/-, but declined the execution of the sale deed.

8. The 1st defendant filed a written statement. She denied the execution of Ex.A1. On the other hand, she stated the manner in which the litigation ensued between her family members and third parties, and ultimately, pleaded that the ownership of all the items has passed on to Narayana Chetty, and thereafter, to defendants 2 to 6, and that as on the date of filing of the written statement, the 7th defendant is the absolute owner of the properties.

9. The 7th defendant filed a written statement narrating the sequence of events, and ultimately, asserting his title. He pleaded that the so-called agreement of sale is either non-existent or is the result of collusion between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 to 6 adopted the written statement of the 7th defendant.

10. Through its judgment dated 27.7.2006, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the decree, the 7th defendant i.e., the 1st respondent filed AS No.75 of 2006 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. The appeal was partly allowed setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court, insofar as it relates to items 2 and 3 of the suit schedule. The decree, as regards item 1, was upheld. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the judgment and de