M.S.K. Jaiswal, J.

These four appeals arise out of common Judgment in O.S.No.623 of 1982 and O.S.No.110 of 1983 on the file of the learned I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, dated 16-09-1991, by and under which, O.S.No.623 of 1982 filed by the land owner of the schedule property for recovery of possession was partly decreed, O.S.No.110 of 1983 filed by the possessor of the schedule property under an agreement of sale, dated 26-10-1973, was partly decreed.

2. The suit schedule property comprises of an extent of 1890 Sq.Yds., of land situated in Sy.Nos.45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 situated in Laxmi Nagar, Satyanarayanapuram within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.

3. Since both the parties were aggrieved by grant of partial relief in their respective suits, the appeals in hand are filed. While the plaintiff in O.S.No.623 of 1982 has filed A.S.No.1850 and 2074 of 1992, the plaintiff in O.S.No.110 of 1983 has filed A.S.No.2091 and 2305 of 1991.

4. Both the suits were clubbed and tried jointly by the trial Court. The evidence was recorded in O.S.No.623 of 1982 which was filed by the owner of the schedule lands for recovery of possession. The defendant in the suit filed O.S.No.110 of 1983 for specific performance of the contract in respect of the same property. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.623 of 1982.

5. The pleadings of the respective parties may briefly be noticed.

6. O.S.No.623 OF 1982:-

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties and for damages of Rs. 13,440/- and for future damages at Rs. 1,000/- per month for use and occupation.

The plaintiff is the owner of Ac.2-09 cents of land in R.S.No.132/1 of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. He obtained layout sanction vide 16/62 by the municipality. In that, an extent of 1260 Sq.Yds. of site was reserved as a park site but it continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. In June, 1974, an extent of 630 Sq.Yds., of site was given on lease to Sri K. Raghava Rao, the Secretary of the defendant, under an agreement on 6-6-1974, at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for the first year and subsequent years, at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and possession was also taken and structures were erected. In April, 1978, after the advent of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Secretary approached the plaintiff and requested to purchase 630 Sq.Yds., of site that was leased along with the reserved site of 1260 Sq.Yds., representing that he would get the dereservation from the Government and also exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities because an educational institution was being run it will be easy to get the above orders. Believing the said words of Raghava Rao, the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property at Rs. 27/- per Sq.Yd. and entered into an agreement. Finally, a sale agreement from the plaintiff was obtained on 23-05-1978 antedating the same as 26-10-1973 on the representation that unless the transaction appears to be long prior to the commencement of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, it will not be possible to obtain the exemptions. After taking possession of the entire plaint schedule property, the defendant obtained permission from the Municipality for construction of class rooms.

It is alleged that several incorrect recitals were mentioned in the contract apart from the dates about the payment of money. It is further alleged that in fact a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid on 23-05-1978 when the agreement was entered into, though the payments were shown earlier one of Rs. 2,000/- on 26-10-1973 and Rs. 1,000/- on 20-09-1976. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid on 27-06-1978 stating that the balance should be paid before 01-10-1979 and in case of failure, it has to be paid with interest of 12% per annum irrespective of the Urban Land Ceiling Permission whether obtained or not. The defendant stopped paying the rents for the leased site from 01-05-1078 onwards. Th