1. This appeal is filed by the third plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.1999 passed in O.S.No.82 of 1983 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. For the sake of convenience, as this is a first appeal, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants only.

3. The suit is filed for specific performance to direct the defendants to obtain necessary permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property or in the alternative for refund of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and for damages of Rs.5,000/-.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the third plaintiff is the adopted son of plaintiffs 1 & 2. The first plaintiff is the wife of second plaintiff. The first defendant is the owner of house No.14/23 (new No.4-4-154) situated at Mandibazar. The first plaintiff was living as tenant in the suit house. One Munsaruddin, the father-in-law of first defendant was looking after the suit house and the plaintiffs took it on lease in 1966 as rent of Rs.15/- per month. Later, the first defendant authorized his father-in-law, Munsaruddin to sell the suit house. The second plaintiff agreed to purchase the same; on the price being settled by elders on 15.01.1979 he paid an advance of Rs.5,000/-. The first defendant was to obtain permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and was to bear 1/3rd of the conveyance charges. Even though the plaintiffs paid substantial sum leaving a balance of Rs.2,000/-, they received to their utter surprise a legal notice from the first defendant with false allegations as to the quantum of rent, breach of terms etc. Hence, the suit for specific performance and other reliefs.

5. During pendency of the suit, plaintiffs 1 & 2, who are wife and husband died and their alleged adopted son was brought on record as plaintiff No.3. The first defendant also died and defendants 2 to 11 were brought on record as his “legal representatives”. The third defendant filed his written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 & 4 to 11 by filing a memo.

6. In the written statement, it is stated that the third plaintiff is not the adopted son of plaintiffs 1 & 2 and as such, he has no locus standi to maintain the suit. The defendants allege that the suit has also abated. The plaintiffs suppressed the factum of their falling due rents claimed in R.C.C.No.47 of 1992 by the first defendant. The second plaintiff approached the first defendant with an offer to purchase it and entreated to sell the suit house to him. The first defendant and the second plaintiff negotiated the deal for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the second plaintiff paid advance of Rs.5,000/- and got executed agreement of sale in January, 1979 in favour of the first plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiffs did not perform their part of contractual obligation and were paying paltry amounts and in total paid a sum of Rs.14,000/-. The first defendant executed an agreement on 12.05.1979 agreeing that he would pay the remaining amount of Rs.16,000/- by 10 a.m. on 20.05.1979 lest the agreement stood cancelled and that advance amount of Rs.14,000/- would be forfeited. However, the plaintiffs did not pay the balance amount. Therefore, the first defendant issued notice to the plaintiffs making the time essence of contract. They state that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

7. Based on the said pleadings, the lower Court framed the following issues for trial.

(i) Whether the third plaintiff can specifically enforce the agreement of sale, dated 15.01.1979 against the defendant?

(ii) Whether the alleged additional agreement dated 12.05.1979 set up by the defendant is true, valid and binding?

(iii) Whether the suit contract was abandoned by the plaintiffs as acclaimed by the defendants?

(iv) Whether the suit had abated and cannot be revived as claimed by the defendants?

(v) Whether the stipulation of liquidated damages claimed by the pl