1. The appellant herein is the original defendant No.2 in a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1, the original plaintiff. The respondent No.1 sought specific performance of an agreement dated 25.08.2001 executed between him and respondent No.2 (original defendant No.1). It was the case of respondent No.1 that the aforesaid agreement was entered into by him for purchase of plot No. 100, Sheet No. 82D owned by respondent No.2. As per the terms of the agreement, the consideration amount was Rs.70,000/-, out of which, Rs.20,000/- were paid as an earnest money to respondent No.2 on the date of agreement itself i.e. 25.08.2001. It was agreed between the parties that the sale-deed in pursuance of the agreement would be executed by 24.02.2002. It was also the case of respondent No.1 that he was accompanied by his father and one Advocate Korde when the aforesaid agreement was executed and earnest amount was paid to respondent No.2.

2. The respondent No.1 claimed that he issued notice on 20.02.2002 (Exh.47) to respondent No.2 in respect of the aforesaid agreement, stating that he was ready with balance amount of Rs.50,000/- and that respondent No. 2 should remain present for execution of sale-deed on 25.02.2002, as 24.02.2002 was a Sunday. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that when he remained present before the Registrar for execution and registration of the sale-deed, the respondent No.2 remained absent. On this basis, the respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 83 of 2002 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati (trial Court) seeking specific performance of the said agreement and for perpetual injunction. The respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) filed her written statement admitting execution of the said agreement and the fact that she had received earnest amount of Rs. 20,000/- from respondent No.1. She pleaded that when respondent No.1 came to know that the appellant (defendant No.2) was already in possession of the suit plot, he became disinterested in the agreement and that therefore, he was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The appellant appeared before the trial Court and claimed that he was in possession of the suit plot in pursuance of an agreement dated 04.03.2002 executed by respondent No.2 in his favour and that the respondent No.1 was not entitled to decree of specific performance. Since the appellant was in possession of the suit plot, the respondent No.1 amended his claim and added the prayer for decree of possession.

3. In the proceedings before the trial Court, the father of respondent No.1 appeared as a witness in support of the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.1, on the basis of Power of Attorney. The aforementioned Advocate Korde also appeared as a witness before the trial Court and supported the contention of respondent No.1 that his father had accompanied them when the agreement in question dated 25.08.2001 was executed and earnest amount was paid to respondent No.2. Beyond filing written statement, respondent No.2 i.e. original defendant No.1 did not adduce evidence on her behalf, although her counsel cross-examined the witnesses who had appeared on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1, directing the respondent No.2 to execute sale-deed in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement by accepting the balance consideration amount. The appellant was directed to handover vacant possession of the suit property to respondent No.1. The trial Court found that the agreement had been proved as also the fact that earnest amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to respondent No.2. It also found that respondent No.1 had proved his readiness and willingness to abide by the terms of the aforesaid agreement and on that basis the trial Court decreed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2009 before the Co