The appellate court confirmed the validity of a registered sale agreement and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's ruling on specific performance despite claims of tenancy.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 15.04.2015 in A.S.No.73 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, (“First Appellate Court” for short) reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 24.08.2006 in O.S.No.15 of 1992, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.3, the respondent No.1 herein the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.15 of 1992.

3. During the pendency of the second appeal, the sole-appellant herein died and as per Order dated 30.04.2025, passed by this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the Legal Representatives of the deceased sole-appellant were brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 5. The respondent No.1 also died during the pendency of the second appeal and as per the Order dated 04.07.2025, passed by this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2025, the Legal Representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 were also brought on record as respondent Nos.4 to 8.

4. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.15 of 1992, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer for separate possession of the agreement of sale dated 09.03.1979, directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and if they fail to do, the Court may execute the sale deed on their behalf and also put the plaintiff in vacant possession of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants there from and for costs.

5. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed appeal suit before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.15 of 1992, who is none other than the respondent No.3 in A.S.No.73 of 2010, approached this Court by way of second appeal.

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

7. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.15 of 1992, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property bearing 16^th ward, Kakinada Municipality in Pankevari Street was the self-acquired property of K.Suryanarayana, S/o. Lakshmana Rao and the said Suryanarayana offered to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same, therefore, the said K.Suryanarayana executed a registered sale agreement dated 09.03.1979, in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule property and received the entire sale consideration before the Sub- Registrar and put the plaintiff in possession of the said property thereof and since then, the plaintiff has been enjoying the said property with absolute rights. The plaintiff pleaded that he along with his family members resided in the said property for some time and after the sale of the house, the said K.Suryanarayana left for Hyderabad and later on died at Hyderabad. The plaintiff further pleaded that he asked K.Suryanarayana to execute a registered sale deed and the said K.Suryanarayana promised to execute the same by stating that he was going to Hyderabad for medical treatment and that after returning from Hyderabad, he would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but, the said K.Suryanarayana died at Hyderabad.

The plaintiff further pleaded that the def