IMPORTANT POINT
The continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance.

JUDGMENT

A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 16/9/2011 in A.S.No.288 of 2006, on the file of the III-Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein (plaintiff) was allowed by setting the judgment and decree dtd. 21/11/2006 in O.S.No.11 of 1997, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereinunder the suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri M.Amogh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 24/1/1994. According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the owners of suit schedule land in Sy.Nos.404, admeasuring Acs.12-36 Gts., and land in Sy.No.405 admeasuring Acs.2-00 at Poodur Village. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell suit the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.4,02,000.00 by entering into an agreement of sale dtd. 24/1/1994. Plaintiff paid Rs.1,50,000.00 towards part sale consideration to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and agreed to pay balance sale consideration at the time of execution of registered sale deed. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are brought on record as the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1. As per the terms of the agreement, defendants have to demarcate the boundaries of the suit schedule property and establish an approach road before execution of registered sale deed, but the defendants have been procrastinating the same though they have received a further sum of Rs.65,000.00 towards sale consideration on various dates from 11/2/1994 and 19/6/1995.

5. The plaintiff further stated that she was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,87,000.00, but the defendants were evading the same. When the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were trying to alienate the suit property in favour of third parties for a higher sale consideration, she got issued legal notice dtd. 2/1/1997. The defendants failed to respond to the plaintiff's legal notice. Though, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract, the defendants were not coming forward to perform their part of contract. Hence, the suit.

6. Defendant No.1 filed written statement inter alia contending that neither he entered into agreement of sale with the regard to suit property nor received part sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000.00 from the plaintiff. It is also denied that he along with defendant Nos.2 and 3 agreed to demarcate the boundaries of suit schedule property and to establish an approach road and received further amount of Rs.65,000.00 from the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also denied the execution of agreement of sale dtd. 24/1/1994. Defendant No.1 along with defendant Nos.2 and 3 approached the plaintiff's husband for financial assistance in the year 1994 on the advise of their relative Bagi Reddy. The plaintiff's husband lent an amount of Rs.20,000.00 as hand loan and obtained signatures of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on some blank stamp papers promising to return the said papers soon after the said amount was repaid. Though defendants repaid the loan amount and also requested the plaintiff's husband to return the blank stamp papers, but they fabricated the agreement of sale dtd. 24/1/1994 by using the said stamp papers with a mala fide intention of grabbing the suit property and thus the agreement of sale is unenforceable and void. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale.

7. Defendant No.2 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1, whi