JUDGMENT :

The defendants are the appellants.

2. The respondents as the plaintiffs laid the suit for redemption relating to an alleged usufructuary mortgage and to direct the original defendant Sri Botta Nookayya to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule land.

3. The plaint schedule describes the land in question being of Ac.1-

00 in S.No.89/2, patta No.227 in Rekhavanipalem, Tuni Mandal of East Godavari District within the boundaries mentioned therein. It shall be referred to hereinafter as, „the suit land‟ for convenience.

4. Sri Gavarayya and his wife Smt. Seethayamma are the parents of the respondents. The suit land belonged to Sri Gavarayya. He died in the year 1965. Upon his death, it devolved upon Smt. Seethayamma and both the respondents. Smt.Seethayamma died in the year 1969 and therefore, both the respondents became its absolute owners upon succession. 5. During her lifetime Smt.Seethayamma on her behalf and on behalf of the 1st respondent, who was then a minor, borrowed Rs.1,000/- from Sri Boddu Narasimha Murthy offering the suit land as the security and executed a registered simple mortgage deed in his favour dated 30.04.1966 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 8% p.a. within three years.

6. The deceased 1st defendant Sri Nookayya is cousin of Smt.Seethayamma.

7. The aforestated simple mortgage dated 30.04.1966 was assigned in favour of Sri Nookayya under a registered deed dated

16.03.1967.

8. It is the contention of the respondents that the deceased defendant Sri Nookayya was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land under a usufructuary mortgage, enjoying the profit therefrom towards interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,000/- and that when they demanded him to deliver this land to them, Sri Nookayya refused claiming that the respondent should pay certain amount under the promissory notes.

9. There was exchange of notices in between the respondents and Sri Nookayya prior to the institution of the suit.

10. The respondents further contended that Sri Nookayya insisted that the suit land be sold to him offering meagre price, which they did not agree and that he attempted to grab the suit land taking advantage of the discharged promissory notes. In those circumstances denying the alleged oral agreement for sale of the suit land in his favour by the respondents for Rs.22,000/- and further denying the connected transactions alleged, referring to their demand for delivery of possession of the suit land upon receiving the amount due under the mortgage, the respondent laid the suit.

11. Sri Nookayya as the sole defendant resisted the claim denying the alleged usufructuary mortgage and relationship between himself and respondents as mortgagee and mortgagors, contending that the suit land was agreed to be sold to him under an oral agreement for sale dated

22.12.1986, whereby Rs.11,600/- was received by the respondents towards part-payment of the sale consideration. Expressing his ready and willingness to pay balance amount of Rs.10,400/-, denying that the 1st respondent had discharged the amounts due to him under various promissory notes, Sri Nookayya asserted possession of the suit land in terms of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. He further contended that the promissory notes executed by the 1st respondent in his favour and in favour of his son Sri Botta Nageswara Rao though not enforceable being barred by time, they reflect part sale consideration paid under the above sale agreement. He also asserted that he had effected improvements to this land spending huge money.

12. Upon death of Sri Nookayya during trial, his Legal Representatives, who are the appellants in this second appeal, also contended that on 22.12.1986 the 1st respondent offered to bring the 2nd respondent to execute the sale deed in terms of oral agreement for sale, referring to various amounts allegedly borrowed by him on different dates. They further contended that they have been enjoying the suit land as purchasers from 22.12.198