JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the trial Court and first appellate Court whereunder suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff vide O.S.No.254 of 2005 has been decreed by declaring the cancellation of GPA executed by the present appellant by virtue of legal notice dated 31.07.2003 as illegal, invalid and not binding the respondent/plaintiff, the aggrieved defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) with a prayer to set aside the impugned Judgments and dismiss the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether the first appellate Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is having interest as per Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, despite the fact that GPA is mainly an authorization to pursue the matter before the Union of India and except that he has no right over the suit schedule property?

b) Whether the first appellate Court is right in ignoring the settled principles of law as stipulated under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.?

3. Before adverting to the contentions of the parties and answering substantial questions of law, for the sake of convenience there is a necessity to peruse the pleading of parties and as to how the trial Court and first appellate Court dealt with their contentions.

4. The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.254 of

2005 with a prayer to declare the cancellation of GPA dated 27.07.1986 as illegal, invalid and not binding him. As per the plaint filed before the trial Court the respondent has claimed that he has entered into an agreement of sale with the present appellant on 23.07.1686 and consideration was agreed to be paid @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and he has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque and also paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- four months after the agreement of sale. As on the date of agreement Cantonment Board, Secunderabad laid a claim over the property, thereby appellant entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent/plaintiff and two others. There was no condition as if time was essence of the contract. The appellant herein executed GPA in favour of the respondent on 27.07.1986 and authorized him to pursue the matter with the authorities of Cantonment Board. 5. The respondent filed a petition vide O.P.No.49 of 2007 before the II Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District for enhancement of the compensation. A suit vide O.S.No.423 of 1987 was also filed before the 1 Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distinct wherein the appellant herein was represented by the respondent being his GPA holder. The respondent has also claimed that the appellant herein developed an evil desire to deprive the rights of respondent in pursuance of the agreement of sale, thereby issued a notice on 19.07.2003 alleging that he has terminated the contract and forfeited the amount paid by the respondent. When the appellant herein did not come forward to perform the agreement, the respondent and other vendor filed suit in O.S.No.168 of 2004 seeking specific performance and the appellant herein filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 2 CPC in O.S.No.423 of 1997 to strike of the names of respondent and two others as he has cancelled the agreement of sale by virtue of his notice. However, the respondent has claimed that since the agreement was admitted and as he has got substantial interest over the property, he has filed original suit seeking the above referred declaration.

5. The appellant herein appeared before the trial Court, filed written statement admitting the execution of sale agreement, but further contended that as the respondent failed to fulfill the conditions of the agreement and having waited for more than (17) years, he has no other option, except to revoke the unregistered sale agreement and GPA. It was also claimed that the respondent failed to prosecute O.S.No.423 of 1997 and also contended that based