This appeal is filed by the defendant(s) against the Judgment and decree, dated 26-02-1993 in O.S.No.65 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Miryalaguda.

2. The averments of the case in brief are as under:-

The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03-10-1985, alleged to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff avers that he and the husband of the defendant, by name Ramanadham are close friends. In July, 1985, the said Ramanadham proposed to sell about 1150 Sq.Yds., of open site in Sy.No.193, situated at Huzurnagar, which was standing in the name of his wife, the defendant. After negotiations the price of the plot was fixed at Rs.150/-. Accordingly, on 03-10-1985, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- to the defendant and duly executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further stated that as per the terms of the said agreement, though the suit land was approximately measured as 1150 Sq.Yds., it should be measured by 01-05-1986 to know the actual extent, and that after receiving the balance sale consideration, if any, at the rate of Rs.150/- per Sq.Yd., the defendant has to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But, contrary to the said agreement, the defendant tried to sell away the suit site to others at higher rate. The husband of the defendant is postponing the matter. Finally, the plaintiff received copies of the Caveat filed by the defendant on 21-03-1986 and came to know that the defendant denying the execution of the agreement of sale and delivery of possession. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and also ready to pay the balance sale consideration, if any, after measuring the suit land. Hence, the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale with an alternative relief for refund of money.

The defendant filed her written statement denying the agreement of sale the land, execution of the agreement of sale, receipt of Rs.1,65,000/-and delivering the possession of the suit land. She contends that they want to construct a house in their site and as the plaintiff obstructed for the said construction, they have filed Caveat petition on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Huzurnagar. Further, the plaintiff has no capacity to purchase the site and he never paid the alleged amount, and even till today the defendant is in possession of the suit land. As the suit site is situated in a very busy locality, the plaintiff filed the suit only to knock away the suit site free of cost, by fabricating false agreement of sale. The plaintiff has no right over the suit site and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 03-10-1985 is trued, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff was put in possession and continued in possession in his own right?

(3) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction or in the alternative restoration of possession?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled in the alternative to refund and damages and if so to what extent?

(7) To what relief?

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.12 were marked.

5. After having perused the oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 26-02-1993, the learned Subordinate Judge, Miryalaguda, accepted the plea of the plaintiff, held all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit, with a direction t