A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the establishment of a substantial question of law, which was not present in this case.

Judgment :

(VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.)

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 13-7-2023 in A.S.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 30-12-2020 in O.S.No.698 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The appellants herein are defendants 3 to 5, respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs 1 and 2 and respondents 3 and 4 are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.698 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajamahendravaram.

3. The 1^st plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.698 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03-5-2010 directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a registered sale deed in his favour upon receipt of balance of sale consideration or in the alternative, to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.4,15,213/- together with subsequent interest thereon with a charge on the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st plaintiff died and the 2^nd plaintiff was added as legal heir of deceased 1^st plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.1822 of 2014, dated 16-4-2015 and later, he was declared as major as per orders in I.A.No.1087 of 2019, dated 23-12-2019; So also, the 1^st defendant died and defendants 4 and 5 were added as legal representatives of deceased 1^st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.139 of 2011, dated 26-6-2012 and they were declared as majors as per orders in I.A.No.1088 of 2019, dated 23-12-2019.

4. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the 2^nd plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03-5-2010 directing the defendants 2 to 4 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the 2^nd plaintiff upon receipt of balance of sale consideration on or before 02-02-2021 by delivering the vacant possession of the schedule property to the 2^nd plaintiff within three months, failing which the 2^nd plaintiff is at liberty to get execute a registered sale deed in his favour in due course of law. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants 3 to 5 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants 3 to 5/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.698 of 2010, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the defendants 1 and 2 having agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the (first) plaintiff for a sum of Rs.7,80,000/-, received a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- as advance out of the sale consideration on 03-5-2010 and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The time for performance of terms was fixed as four months. Though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract within stipulated time with balance of sale consideration by requesting the defendants 1 and 2, they postponed the same, under an agreement of sale, dated 03-5-2010, they executed a registered sale deed dated 29-7-2010 in favour of the 3^rd defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 executed a nominal sale deed in favour of the 3^rd defendant, as such, it is not valid and it is also not supported by consideration.

7. The defendants 1 to 3 filed written statements denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:

The defendants 1 and