L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 63 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, filed this Second Appeal, feeling aggrieved by the decree dated 15-07-2009, passed in that suit and affirmed by the Court of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Guntur, in A.S. No. 40 of 2011, dated 14-03-2013.

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

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 09-04-2001. It was pleaded that the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, and accordingly the agreement of sale was executed. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs is said to have been paid. It was also pleaded that the balance of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid by 24-05-2001, and the defendants were under obligation to execute the sale deed and that if the balance of consideration is not paid, as stipulated, it shall carry interest at 24% per annum. The agreement also provided for removal of timber and saw-mill and other sheds from the suit schedule property and delivery of vacant possession thereof, at the time of execution of the sale deed.

4. The plaintiff further pleaded that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants refused to receive the consideration and to execute the sale deed. He has also pleaded that there is no obligation to pay interest at 24% per annum, since the breach was on the part of the defendants. Reference was made to the legal notice dated 06-06-2001. It was also pleaded that the property was mortgaged to the 3rd defendant (2nd respondent), despite the existence of the agreement of sale.

5. The suit was opposed by the defendants 1 and 2, by filing a written-statement. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant was the owner of the property and he mortgaged the same to the Indian Oversees Bank as a security for repayment of the loan, and that his wife, the 2nd defendant, and the plaintiff stood as guarantors. It was alleged that the agreement of sale was executed for nominal purpose, and no consideration was paid thereunder. The 3rd defendant did not file any written-statement.

6. The trial Court decreed the suit, through judgment dated 15-07-2009. The appeal preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 was dismissed.

7. Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submits that the plaintiff was very much aware of the existence of the mortgage, in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of M/s. Indian Oversees Bank, and that the absence of any reference to that transaction in the agreement of sale, would disclose that it was only nominal in nature. He submits that the plaintiff took advantage of a document, which was brought into existence, out of apprehension, and the equitable relief of specific performance ought not to have been granted in his favour.

8. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff was, in fact, to liquidate the loan to the M/s. Indian Oversees Bank and for other purposes, and that there is no legal infirmity in the transaction. He submits that once the execution of the agreement of sale is not denied, and the plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, hardly there exists any alternative for the trial Court, other than the one, of decreeing the suit.

9. The suit filed by the plaintiff was the one, for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The 1st defendant did not dispute the agreement of sale, marked as Ex. A-1. Taking into account, the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

1. Whether the contract of sale Dt. 9-4-01 is true, valid and binding?

2. Whether the defendants did not execute the contract with intention to sell the property?

3. Whether; the plaintiff is entitled to s