The sole plaintiff in OS No. 180 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati is the appellant. He entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.2.1999 with the respondents/defendants. He pleaded that the respondents, who are sister and brother got the suit schedule property in a family partition; evidenced by a registered partition deed dated 20.6.1992, and that they offered to sell the same for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Advance of Rs. 50,000/- is said to have been paid. It is stated that the suit schedule property is part of larger extent of Acs.2.24 cents in Sy. No. 525/2B of Perur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal and that the corresponding share being, 1/21 was agreed to be conveyed by the respondents. It is alleged that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the respondents did not cooperate and accordingly prayed for a decree for specific performance.

2. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte, and the suit was contested by the 1st respondent. She stated that the agreement relied upon by the appellant is interpolated, fabricated and is unenforceable in law. Obviously, indirectly admitting the execution thereof, the 1st respondent stated that the contents of the agreement are incomplete, and that the same is unenforceable in law. She raised the plea of limitation, and has also stated that the rights, if any, under the agreement stood forfeited.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 31.8.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed AS No. 140 of 2006 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The appeal was dismissed on 4.8.2010. Hence, this second appeal.

4. Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that once the respondents did not dispute the execution of the agreement of sale, the suit ought to have been decreed. He contends that the property was originally purchased by the father of the respondents 1 and 2, in the form of an undivided share of 1/24 in Acs.2.24 cents, and that later on, it was partitioned among the joint family members. Learned Counsel submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have concentrated more upon unnecessary details, than dealing with the actual issue, that is involved in the matter.

5. Sri P. Hemachandra, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the agreement, Ex. A1 was substantially interpolated, not only by striking of some words, but also in certain other respects. He contends that the agreement was prepared, giving an indication that the property was jointly sold by the respondents and their brother, Rudra Deva Reddy and for reasons best known to them, the respondents did not obtain his signature and struck off his name. He contends that the description of the property, both in Ex. A1 and in the plaint is vague, uncertain and cannot be the subject-matter of a decree, at all.

6. The suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale filed by the appellant herein was opposed by the respondents, by raising the plea of interpolation and tampering with of the agreement, as well as its unenforceability. The trial Court framed the following issues, on the basis of the pleadings:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 11.2.1999?

2. Whether the suit agreement is a created one with material alterations?

3. Whether the time is essence of contract of the suit agreement?

4. Whether the suit agreement is unenforceable under law?

5. Whether the suit based on agreement of sale dated 11.2.1999 is barred by limitation?

7. On behalf of the appellant, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 and B2 were filed. On dismissal of the suit, the appellant filed AS No. 140 of 2006, wherein the following points were framed:

1. Whether the suit agreement dated 11.2.1999 is materially altered and not enforceable u