JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – appellants – defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2007 by the I Additional District Judge, Khammam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.18 of 1998 by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiff and defendants.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on an agreement of sale dated 25.09.1995. The case of the plaintiff was that one Shaik Saida Bee was the owner of the suit schedule plot measuring about 120 square yards situated at Narsimha Swamy Temple Road, Khammam Town, Khammam District. The said house plot was bounded by house of the plaintiff on the east, the house of Shaik Chand, S/o. of Shaik Saida Bee and the house of one Ramulu bearing Municipal No.11-1-92 towards west and bounded on north and south by municipal roads. The defendant No.6 was the wife of late Shaik Chand and the defendants 1 to 5 were the daughters of Shaik Chand and defendant No.7 was the husband of Shaik Saida Bee. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with Smt. Saida Bee alias Sultan Begum, W/o. Shaik Karnal on 25.09.1995 to purchase the suit schedule property @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 25.09.1995. On receipt of Rs.10,000/-, the defendants executed an agreement of sale in favor of the plaintiff agreeing to execute a valid registered sale deed after receipt of remaining balance consideration. The plaintiff also paid Rs.500/- to Shaik Moulali, Brother of Shaik Saida Bee on 21.10.1995, who endorsed the receipt of the same on the agreement. The agreement of sale deed was executed before Shaik Moulali, Brother of Shaik Saida Bee. The said document was scribed by one Mohd.Azharuddin, a document writer of Khammam. Shaik Saida Bee was having only one son by name Shaik Chand and he died in the year 1994. After his death, defendant No.6 left the house of Shaik Saida Bee. Shaik Saida Bee alone was residing in the house. Since the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of Saida Bee, she alone had got right over the same. The plaintiff got issued a public notice in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 23.10.1995 through his counsel Sri K.Uttam Kumar, Khammam calling for objections from any person. The plaintiff’s counsel received a notice from Sri P.Amarchand, advocate, Khammam dated 26.10.1995 issued under the instructions of defendants 1 to 5 alleging that the suit schedule property was gifted by late Shaik Saida Bee in favor of defendants 1 to 5 and that the said gift deed was oral and late Saida Bee also executed a gift deed dated 28.04.1994 in favor of defendants 1 to 5 and contended that Shaik Saida Bee had no right over the suit schedule property and that they also filed O.S.No.452 of 1995 and I.A.No.903 of 1995 against Saida Bee not to alienate the property. The plaintiff got issued a reply notice through his counsel requesting him to furnish the photostat copy of the alleged gift deed said to have been executed by Shaik Saida Bee and the copies of the plaint and petition in I.A.No.903 of 1995. The same was served on the advocate for defendants 1 to 7 on 28.11.1995. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice to Shaik Saida Bee on 24.11.1995 calling upon her to make clear whether the alleged gift deed through which defendants 1 to 5 were claiming ownership over the suit schedule property was true or not and calling upon Shaik Saida Bee to execute a registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff by receiveing the balance sale consideration within ten days. The said legal notice was returned un-served stating that Saida Bee was not available in the house. The advocate for defendants 1 to 5 had also not supplied any photostat copies of the plaint or the alleged gift deed. The enquiries made by the plaintiff revealed that late Saida Bee h