JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5 of 2005 dated 22.10.2009 on the file of learned District Judge, Adilabad, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.12.2004 in respect of agricultural property.

2. The parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the original suit for sake of brevity and for better understanding of the case.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25.12.2004 in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said agreement is entered between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.8.11 guntas, situated at Kadthal village, Ranga Reddy District, for a sale consideration of ₹ 1,31,000/- per acre, and total consideration of ₹ 10,62,410/- and out of the same, the defendant received ₹ 15,000/-, as on date of execution of said agreement of sale, as advance of sale consideration and that the transaction was settled in the presence of Syed Faizuddin Mohd.Saleem and Syed Muneeruddin.

4. Further, as per the agreement of sale, the defendant has to demarcate the suit schedule property within a week days from the said date of agreement of sale, and the sale consideration is to be paid within a week thereafter, upon which the defendant agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receipt of balance sale consideration. It is averred by the plaintiff that in spite of several demands, the defendant did not make any effort to get the land demarcated and did not show any interest to perform his part of obligation, though plaintiff is ready to perform his part of contract and therefore, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 15.02.2005, the defendant did not give any reply to it. Therefore, one more notice was issued on 14.03.2005 by the plaintiff and the defendant gave reply on 20.03.2005 requesting a copy of the agreement and denied the execution of agreement, dated 25.12.2004 and put forwarded a new case contending that plaintiff approached the defendant for supply of cool drinks along with crates in wholesale rates with a big bottle cooler and that the amount of ₹ 15,000/- was deposited towards supply of cool drinks with crates. As the defendant refused to perform his part of contract, the plaintiff sought for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 25.12.2004 by expressing readiness and willingness to pay balance sale consideration along with a request for demarcation of the plaint schedule property and to execute a sale deed.

5. The defendant filed written statement denying the agreement, dated 25.12.2004, and receipt of ₹ 15,000/- as earnest money in pursuance of said sale consideration in the presence of the said witnesses and contended that he never admitted to demarcate the land and he never agreed to receive the balance sale consideration under the agreement. It is specifically averred that the said agreement of sale, dated 25.12.2004 is a fabricated document, and it is contended that he gave reply on 15.02.2005 through his Advocate and the plaintiff taking undue advantage of innocence of the defendant, brought into the existence of aforesaid agreement with an intention to grab the valuable property of the defendant and the plaintiff filed the suit without any proper grounds.

6. It is asserted that the defendant is a wholesale dealer of Pepsi Cool Drinks for Nirmal Mandal and he carries on his business under the name and style of M/s.Masood Agencies beside Tirumala Hotel at Nirmal, and the plaintiff carries on his business of eggs near bus stand of Nirmal, and the plaintiff in order to expand his business approached the defendant for negotiation of terms and conditions of supply of cool drinks as plaintiff wanted bottle cooler for storage of cool drinks, he deposited ₹ 15,000/- with the defendant for supply of double door bottle cooler and crates, and