M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ('the Code', for brevity) by the unsuccessful defendants is directed against the decree and judgment dated 04.06.2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem passed in A.S.no.68 of 2004, whereby the said learned Senior Civil Judge while dismissing with costs the said first appeal suit had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 21.06.2004 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem passed in O.S.no.713 of 2003 filed for specific performance in respect of an immovable property situate within the territorial jurisdiction of Tadepalligudem.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants ('the defendants', for brevity) and the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff ('the plaintiff, for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. On 16.07.2015, this Court, while admitting the second appeal, had formulated the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the decrees and judgments of the Courts below are vitiated on account of adjudication of the issues on the evidence already recorded by the Court at Eluru and for not conducting a de novo trial after the plaint was returned by the said Court for presentation before the proper Court and on presentation of the plaint afresh in the Court of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Tadepalligudem?

(ii) Whether the Courts below erred in not properly appreciating the evidence and in recording incorrect conclusions that the suit schedule property is not ancestral property of the defendants, and hence, and for not considering the material evidence, the decrees and judgments of the Courts below are vitiated?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance in the facts and circumstances of the case? And, if so, whether it is a fit case to refuse the equitable relief of specific performance even if it is otherwise lawful to grant such relief?"

Though the three substantial questions of law stated above are formulated, both the learned counsel made submissions at length only on the first substantial question of law.

4. As a prelude, it is necessary to state the introductory facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal. The sole plaintiff had brought the instant suit (old O.S. no. 143 of 2000) originally on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru against the defendants 1 to 5 for specific performance of the contract to sell dated 24.02.1997 in respect of the property bearing D.No.2-61-A, Asst. No.822/96 admeasuring an extent of 290½ square yards, i.e., Ac.0.36 cents of site and tiled house at 2nd Block, Prathipadu village of Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The first defendant had died during the pendency of this suit. The 2nd defendant had remained ex parte. The defendants 3 to 5, who were brought on record being the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, had filed a written statement and resisted the suit. The Court at Eluru, which conducted trial, had framed the following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants?

(ii) Whether the first defendant has no right to sell away the schedule property?

(iii) Whether the suit sale agreement dated 24.10.1997 is a rank forgery and whether it is binding on the defendants?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract as prayed for or in the alternative whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest as prayed for?

(v) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

(vi) To what relief?

(Reproduced verbatim)

4.1 At trial conducted by the Court of first instance, the plaintiff and his supporting witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and exhibits A1 to A5 were mark