JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2016, passed in O.S. No. 469 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District Judge, at Visakhapatnam, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 16.03.2013, or in the alternative, for refund of advance sale consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/- with interest and costs, was decreed.

2. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri D. Ravishankar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall be referred as the plaintiff and defendant hereinafter.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property, which is a zyroti dry land, in an extent of Ac.1.40 cents. The defendant offered the said land for sale to the plaintiff and the plaintiff accepted the said offer, and an agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, on 16.03.2013. As per the said agreement of sale, the sale consideration is fixed at Rs. 11,500/- per Cent and on 16.03.2013, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- towards advance sale consideration, by way of cheque bearing No. 419524, dated 17.04.2013, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Visakhapantam, for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- in cash and the defendant acknowledged the same. As per the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, the defendant has to execute registered sale deed for the schedule mentioned property within three months from the date of agreement of sale, in favour of the plaintiff by conducting survey of the land for its exact extent. The plaintiff has to pay the remaining balance on the date of registration. Subsequently, the plaintiff has been intimating his readiness and willingness for getting the registered sale deed for the schedule mentioned property and the defendant used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other. While so, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is making hectic efforts to sell away the schedule property to third parties by ignoring the agreement of sale entered into with the plaintiff. On 16.06.2014, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant that he is ready with the remaining sale consideration for getting the registered sale deed for the schedule mentioned property. On 23.06.2014, the defendant got issued reply admitting receipt of advance amount and denying execution of the registered sale deed and by raising false allegations. Even though the plaintiff is intimating his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement with remaining sale consideration and registration expenses, the defendant is not coming forward to perform his part of agreement. Even after receipt of legal notice, the defendant refused to perform his part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

(b) The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is further contended in the written statement as follows:

The defendant intimated to the plaintiff through the mediators that he is ready to execute the sale deed and demanded to pay the balance sale consideration. But, the plaintiff postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The defendant approached the plaintiff several times to pay the amount and he is ready and willing to execute the sale deed, however, as the plaintiff did not respond, the amount paid by the plaintiff was forfeited. As the plaintiff committed breach of terms & conditions of the agreement, the defendant is not interested in executing the sale deed. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is neither entitled to refund of the advance amount nor the relief of specific performance. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing o