JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal, impugning the concurrent findings of the Courts below in O.S.No.239 of 1994 and A.S.No.82 of 2004, is filed by (the 4th Appellant in A.S.No.82 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam) Smt. Nakka Satyavathi, W/o. DW1-Nakka Nukaraju(since died) against one Smt.Mulagada Venkata Ramana Kumari W/o. PW1-Ramayya, plaintiff in O.S.No.239 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, also by showing formally as respondent No.2 to the second appeal said late Nukaraju (sole defendant in O.S.No.239 of 1994 since died pending the 1st appeal he filed as sole appellant supra), besides the 2nd appeal pro forma respondents 3-5 who are no other than the two daughters and mother of said Nukaraju by names Smt. Ravipalli Lakshmidevi, Smt. Ravipalli Vijayalakshmi and Nakka Nookalamma all impleaded as LRs in the 1st appeal along with Smt. Nakka Satyavathi.

2. The suit O.S.No.239 of 1994 filed by Venkata Ramana Kumari supra against late Nukaraju supra was for the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property described as site of an area of 500sq.yds. in plot no.60, block no.39 of maitryinagar, near beach road, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corp. limits, bounded by E-40 feet road, W- plot no.65, S-30 feet road & N-Gedda, pursuant to the Ex.A3 registered sale deed No.752 dt.25.03.1992, obtained through Court pursuant to the decree and Judgment for specific performance of the trial court confirmed in the appeal (covered by the Exs.A1, 2, 4 & 5 Certified Copies of trial court in O.S.No.119 of 1982, dated 23.04.1987 confirmed in A.S.No.95 of 1987 dated 15.07.1991), based on the Ex.A14 C.C. of non- possessory sale agreement, dated 29.08.1979 with later endorsement of delivery of possession by receiving part payment of Rs.5,000/- on 10.10.1979 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.119 of 1982 by name Pentakota Seetaramanjaneyulu, one of the four sons of one Pentakota Ramabhadrarao s/o. of Sreeramulu Naidu, where from the contest of Seetaramanjaneyulu in disputing the sale agreement and the property claimed in the suit has fallen to the share of his one of three brothers by name Sitaram(impleaded as 2nd defendant). Late Nakka Nukaraju supra was not made party to the specific performance suit in O.S.No.119 of 1982. Said Nukaraju also filed separate suit for specific performance on 26.12.1991 in O.S.No.1151 of 1991 based on earlier possessory sale agreement, dated 24.11.1976, said to have been executed by the defendant in O.S.No.1151 of 1991 by name Pentakota Ramabhadrarao. Pentakota Seetaramanjaneyulu as stated supra is one of the four sons of Pentakota Ramabhadrarao. The suit in O.S.No.1151 of 1991 was also decreed ex-parte on 09.03.1992, based on the possessory sale agreement supra of 1976.

3. The contentions raised in the second appeal grounds, with the say of involving substantial questions of law as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the lower appellate court should have seen that the defendants are not bound by the so-called decree simplicitor for specific performance of the contract for sale with a stranger to the property in O.S.No.119 of 1982, leave apart that so called sale agreement is an ambiguous and perfunctory one without any measurement and any other information for identification of the property to claim as the suit schedule property and that otherwise the suit for possession without seeking relief of declaration is also not maintainable. It is also contended that the lower appellate court ought to have seen that in the suit O.S.No.119 of 1982, relief for possession with relief of specific performance was not even asked and the second suit which is covered by the present lis for possession thereby is barred by law under Order II Rule 2 CPC and also from Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, f