L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. No.51 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, filed this appeal challenging the decree and judgment dated 21.11.2000 passed therein. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the appellants and the 2nd respondent (defendant No.5).

2. Since the 2nd respondent did not contest the suit, the 1st respondent herein referred to as the respondent.

3. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.02.1995. He pleaded that the appellants are the owners of Acs.26-00 of land in different survey numbers of Talluru village of East Godavari District and they offered to sell the same for a sum of Rs.60,000/- per acre, aggregating to Rs.15,60,000/-. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is said to have been paid as an advance and that balance of sale consideration was agreed to be paid within 4 months. It was also his case that the appellants agreed to clear the loans due to Cooperative Society, Gandepalli (for short “the society”) and Samarlakota Sugar Factory (for short “the factory”) and to deliver the original title deeds, at the time of registration.

4. The respondent pleaded that though he was ready with the balance of sale consideration, the appellants did not come forward to execute the sale deed and register the document, and he addressed a letter dated 26.05.1995 calling upon them to perform their part of contract. It was stated that he got issued another notice dated 01.06.1995 to the appellants and that the latter in turn, gave a necessary reply dated 17.08.1995. It was also stated that through a notice dated 10.10.1995, the appellants got cancelled the agreement and a reply was given to that on 13.10.1995. According to him, the appellants addressed a letter dated 24.11.1995 stating that they are ready with the documents and the default was on the part of the respondent. He ultimately prayed for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale and for delivery of the suit schedule property; or in the alternative for a decree for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 01.02.1995 till the date of payment.

5. The 5th defendant in the suit i.e., the 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The appellants contested the suit by filing a common written statement. They admitted execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was, however, stated that though the balance of sale consideration was required to be paid within four months, the respondent did not come forward to pay that. It was stated that they did not receive the letter dated 26.05.1995. Another contention of the appellants was that they cleared the loan to the Society and the Factory long ago and since the respondent did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration, they cancelled the agreement. According to them, there is steep increase in the prices of the land in the locality and that the respondent is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

6. The trial Court passed the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, directing the appellants to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance of sale consideration. Hence, this appeal.

7. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have decided to sell their land to meet their immediate necessities and though four months period was stipulated for payment of balance of sale consideration, the respondent did not come forward at all. He contends that a meager amount, which is just about 6% of total consideration, was paid as advance and there is nothing on record to disclose that the respondent was possessed of the balance of the sale consideration. He submits that the trial Court has adopted a totally defective procedure in answering the issue straightaway and reducing the discussion in the judgment, only to the one of justifying the c