1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1998 in O.S.No.306 of 1995 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala.

2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case are as follows:

(a) Originally, the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judges Court, Narasaraopet and numbered as O.S.No.80 of 1994 and subsequent to the constitution of Senior Civil Judges Court at Gurazala, the suit has been made over and renumbered as O.S.No.306 of 1995.

(b) The suit is filed for the specific performance of contract of sale deed dated 08.05.1991 and in alternative for refund of the advance paid and also to grant of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages in case the sale deed could not be executed by defendants 1 & 2 in addition to the relief of granting of interest on earnest money.

(c) The suit schedule property is purchased by Gunda Saravaiah under the registered sale deed and the same devolved upon defendants 1 & 2 after the demise of Gunda Sarvaiah. Ever since, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The 3rd defendant was given in adoption to Batchu family. He acquired the property from his adoptive parents and has been treated as member of adoptive family and he has no right over the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 & 2 contracted to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.7,800/- per each cent of land and tentatively the area has been estimated to be Ac.0.13 cents. The defendants 1 & 2 received Rs.25,000/- on 08.05.1991 and executed a contract of sale and agreed to get the land measured to arrive at the actual area and to receive the exact amount after measurements.

(d) As a dispute was raised by the 3rd defendant, the 2nd defendant made an endorsement to the effect on the foot of the contract on 28.09.1991 that after the disputes raised by the 3rd defendant are settled, the defendants would execute a regular registered sale deed and the plaintiff need not pay any interest for the balance of consideration. The 3rd defendant also filed O.S.No.303 of 1991 on the file of Sub- Court, Narasaraopet, which was pending them.

(e) The plaintiff also claimed that he is entitled to the interest on Rs.25,000/- at 24% per annum from the date of notice till the date of execution of sale deed. The defendants 1 & 2 received the said notice but did not give any reply. The 3rd defendant gave reply notice with false allegations. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale deed dated 08.05.1991 and also for interest at 24% per annum on Rs.25,000/-, which was paid as an advance and in the alternative for damages at Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of Gunda Saravaiah, who is none other than of his father. The said property had devolved upon defendants 1 & 2. The plaintiff, who is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, invented the false story to delay the specific performance and to gain time. The defendants never gave any consent or authorization to the 1st defendant at any time to act on behalf of the 2nd defendant in the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 with regard to the suit document. The payment of interest on the earnest money would not arise for consideration. The plaintiff is not willing to perform his part of contract and as such, he is not entitled to the relief and the agreement of sale is barred by limitation and it is unenforceable. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as the 3rd defendant is unnecessarily impleaded in the suit. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4. On the basis of the said pleadings, the parties went to trial. For the plaintiff, six witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. For the defendants, one witness was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked. The lower Court framed the fol