A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 41 of 1998, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur is the appellant in the present appeal suit filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree, dismissing the suit.

2. The appellant herein instituted the said suit for specific performance of agreement of Sale dated 09.02.1988. Suit schedule properly is the open space, ad-measuring East to West 9½ feet, North to South 34 Feet i.e., 35 and 8/9 sq uards situated on the Southern side of Walse Road, within the limits of Hindupur Municipality.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant executed Ex.A.1 Sale Agreement dated 09.02.1988, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 62,500/- and he paid a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as advance amount and also another sum of Rs. 500/- and the defendant acknowledged the same by way of Ex.A.2 on the same date. Plaintiff further pleaded that as the defendant was not cooperating for execution of the sale deed, he got issued Ex.A.3 legal notice dated 03.05.1988, calling upon the defendant to perform his part of contract. In response to the said legal notice, defendant got issued Ex.A.44 reply dated 09.05.1988 and thereafter the plaintiff caused Ex.A.4 second notice dated 18.05.1988, asking the defendant to perform his part of contract and thereafter the defendant got issued Ex.42 reply. With the above pleadings, plaintiff/appellant herein instituted the suit on 10.06.1988 and thereafter he sought amendment of the plaint by insertion of para 13 (a) and by virtue of the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No. 126 of 1993, dated 25.06.1993, the plaint was amended. The defendant filed written statement and also additional written statement.

4. On the basis of the pleadings available, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues and additional issue for trial:

1. Whether the time is the essence of the contract?

2. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

3. Whether the performance of the contract is depended upon the performance of the contract of Prabhavathamma, the defendant's sister?

4. Whether the second respondent herein can be said to be a bona fide purchaser and whether on the said ground he can non-suit plaintiff/appellant?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?

6. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for.

5. During the course of trial, apart from examining himself as PW.1, plaintiff in order to substantiate his case also examined PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.44. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and DW.2 was examined on his behalf and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1995, the Court below dismissed OS.41 of 1988, ordering refund of Rs. 62,500/- deposited by the plaintiff towards balance sale consideration. This appeal challenges the validity and legal sustainability of the said judgment and decree.

7. Heard Sri S. Sunder Rajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manohar Reddy for the respondent No. 4 and perused the material available before the Court.

8. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District judge is erroneous, contrary to law and in total ignorance of the material available on record. It is further contended that Ex.A.1 agreement executed by the defendant is independent of the agreement executed by the sister of the defendant, as such, the execution of the sale deed in terms of the Ex.A.1 suit agreement of sale cannot be linked with the execution pursuant to the agreement executed by the sister of the defendant who has no right to convey the property as declared in Small Cause Suit No.l18/1991. It is further submitted that it is incorrect to state that the site of the