The burden of proof lies with the defendant, and the court's decision is based on the interpretation of evidence and the application of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Defendants in the suit filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The sole plaintiff is the respondent here.

2. This appeal has been coming up for hearing before admission. Sri K.Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for appellants and Smt. G.Manasa, the learned counsel representing Sri K.R.Srinivas, the learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.

3. The following facts leading to the present appeal are required to be noticed:

(a) O.S.No.143 of 1999 was a suit filed for specific performance of agreement for sale. It was filed by Sri Pyla Venkata Ramana as against Sri Gatta Ramulu @ Ramunaidu. During the pendency of the suit before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram the sole defendant died and thereafter his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 7. During his lifetime the sole defendant/defendant No.1 filed his written statement. Subsequently, the impleaded legal representatives through fifth defendant filed an additional written statement while the rest of the defendants filed a memo adopting the same. Record would further indicate that on the application of the legal representatives learned trial Court permitted the written statement of late defendant No.1 amended. The purport of the said amendment is to substitute the name of Sri Gatta Appa Rao with the name of Sri Bantu Appala Naidu.

(b) In the plaint it was urged that Gatta Ramulu was the owner of Ac.0.30 cents of immovable property in patta No.551 in Survey No.320-13 in Gowripatnam Village. On 26.03.1999 he executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff. Sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,350/- per cent. On the date of agreement for sale plaintiff paid and Sri Gatta Ramulu received Rs.6,000/- towards part of the sale consideration. By the terms of the agreement the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration within one month and get the sale deed registered by Sri Gatta Ramulu. A week days after this document, plaintiff went to the first defendant and offered to pay the balance sale consideration but he was dodging it. On enquiries plaintiff had come to know the ill-intentions of Sri Gatta Ramulu in his efforts to alienate the property to others. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 08.04.1999 expressing his readiness and wiliness to have the registered sale deed and offered balance sale consideration. Sri Gatta Ramulu received the same but kept silent. In those circumstances, suit was filed seeking for specific performance and in the alternative for refund of money along with interest.

(c) Sri Gatta Ramulu/defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied his intention to sell the property to the plaintiff and denied the execution of agreement for sale and stated that the plaint alleged agreement for sale is a fabricated document. He pleaded that he executed an agreement for sale dated 15.03.1999 in favour of Sri Gatta Appa Rao who offered to purchase this property at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent and accordingly he received an advance sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-. That the property was still in possession of Sri Gatta Appa Rao from whom originally this defendant purchased the property and to whom he owes Rs.16,000/-towards a mortgage debt. Since the plaintiff being a Constable was high-handedly demanding him to sell this property to him and since this defendant refused to do it, the plaintiff has come up with this false suit based on a fabricated document and sought dismissal of the suit.

(d) The written statement filed by the legal representatives was also to the same effect.

4. On those rival pleadings, the learned trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues for its consideration:

1. Whether the sale agreement dt: 26.03.1999 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

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

3. To what relief?

Additional Issues:

1. Whether the sale agreement is not hit