JUDGMENT:

Defendant before the trial Court filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC questioning the judgment and decree of specific performance of an agreement for sale that was granted by the first appellate Court.

2. O.S.No.589 of 2012 was a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale with a further prayer for perpetual injunction. Respondent herein was the plaintiff and he filed that suit against the defendant who is the appellant here. After due trial, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa by a judgment dated 04.07.2016 dismissed the suit. However, as the defendant in that suit volunteered to redeposit the sale consideration she received, the same was permitted and the plaintiff in the suit was permitted to withdraw the suit amount.

3. Having failed to secure the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.73 of 2016 before learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. On considering the material on record by a judgment dated 13.03.2018 and on hearing both sides, it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa directed the defendant to execute the registered sale deed within a time of 60 days with a further direction to the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the property.

4. Challenging the judgment of the appellate Court, the defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

5. On 03.06.2019, a learned Judge of this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the order of the Frist Appellate Court is perverse, incorrect and ignored the settled law on the subject as it has not considered the entire oral and documentary evidence introduced in the case?

2) Whether there are delays and latches on the part of the plaintiff, which would disentitle him to claim specific performance?

3) Whether the plaintiff has proved his continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract?

4) Whether the purchasers of the property are also necessary and proper parties to the suit?

5) Whether a simple suit for specific performance alone is maintainable when the plaintiff is aware of the alienation of the property prior to the suit and the defendant has gone on record prior to the suit stating that the third party is the true owner of the property?

6) Whether the interpretation based on the terms of Ex.Al agreement are perverse and not as per the law?

7) Whether the frame of the suit is correct as the initial legal notice-Ex.A.2 issued on date 24.09.2012 was addressed to two parties but ultimately the suit was filed against one defendant only?

6. Learned counsel on both sides argued this appeal at length and learned counsel for respondent cited legal authorities.

7. To appreciate the contentions on both sides, a few facts are to be noticed.

8. An agreement dated 26.01.2006 between the parties is the basis of controversy between the parties. The said document is Ex.A.1. It is an unregistered possessory agreement for sale. It refers to AC.0.02 cents of vacant site in Survey.No.13/1 of Akkayapalli Village within the limits of Kadapa Municipal Corporation of Kadapa District. Recitals in this document indicate that the defendant holds full title and complete and peaceful possession and enjoyment of this property and it is unencumbered and she intended to sell it to meet her family needs. Total sale consideration is fixed at Rs.80,000/- and the document further shows that plaintiff/vendee paid the entire sale consideration and that was acknowledged by the defendant. Defendant/vendor delivered the possession of property to the plaintiff on the date of that agreement itself. No further time limits are prescribed and it is agreed between the parties that as and when plaintiff demands and property could be registered, a regular registered sale deed could be executed by the defendant at the expenses of the plaintiff.

9. It is based on that agreement for sale, plaintiff laid the suit. Prior to the institution of