The court ruled that specific performance of a sale agreement should be granted despite discrepancies in boundary descriptions, as the Defendants did not contest the execution of the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the and decree, dated 25.03.2004 passed in A.S. No.55 of 2001 on Judgment the file of District Judge, Ongole (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 29.12.2000 passed in O.S. No.243 of 1997 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short 'the trial Court').

2. The Appellants are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S. No.243 of 1997 for Specific Performance of sale agreement and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 from entering into the plaint schedule property and with costs.

3. It is prudent to refer to the parties as they were originally presented in the suit O.S. No.243 of 1997 to minimize any potential confusion and to enhance the understanding of the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) The second Defendant acquired the property described in the plaint schedule, along with an additional area totalling 1.23 acres, through a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1978. Following the purchase, the southern portion of this property, adjacent to Kurnool Road, was subdivided into two plots of 111 gadies each, with a passage left between them to access the remaining northern area. The area further north of these two plots was also developed into house plots by the second Defendant.

(b) The Plaintiffs and Maddineni Mala Kondaiah agreed to purchase the property outlined in the plaint schedule, with a price of Rs. 460/- per Gadi (equivalent to 72 feet), totalling Rs. 51,060/-. This agreement occurred in the presence of the second Defendant and K. Chiranjeevarao, who acted on the second Defendant's behalf. At that time, a proposal for a road between the two plots was under consideration. In April 1981, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to K.Chiranjeevarao as instructed by the second Defendant. Subsequently, the second Defendant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of K. Chiranjeevarao, who then executed the sale agreement on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Maddineni Mala Kondaiah. The vendor also delivered possession of the property to them. The eastern boundary was designated as the remaining site within the same survey number, intended for passage, noted as belonging to the vendor. Although a regular registered sale deed was not obtained, complications arose when Maddineni Mala Kondaiah wished to withdraw from the transaction. The first Plaintiff agreed to purchase Mala Kondaiah's share, and both the second Defendant and K. Chiranjeevarao consented to substituting the first Plaintiff's name for Mala Kondaiah's. It was advised that a fresh agreement be executed rather than an existing one amended. Consequently, on 09.08.1985, a new agreement of sale was drafted, incorporating all terms and conditions from the previous agreement, including site boundaries. The first Plaintiff compensated Mala Kondaiah for his proportionate share, and K. Chiranjeevarao signed the new agreement as the G.P.A. holder for the second Defendant.

(c) Subsequently, though the Plaintiffs offered to pay the balance of Rs. 1060/- also, the vendor and his Power of Attorney agent stated that they would receive the balance of the amount after settling the accounts between them and that ever since 09.08.1985 all the Plaintiffs have been in possession of the plaint schedule site. It was mentioned in the agreement of sale that it was without reference to the Law of limitation.

(d) K. Chiranjeevarao is suffering from cancer. The second Defendant, who held a G.P.A. from Chiranjeevarao, subsequently cancelled the original G.P.A. and executed a new one in favour of Chiranjeevarao's wife, the third Defendant, K. Ramadevi. When the Plaintiffs approached both the second and third Defendants to execute the regular sa