Heard Sri G.Hemachalam, learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the appellant and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent.

2. Ground Nos.2 to 4 in the second appeal are the substantial questions of law, which had been pointed out and argued in elaboration by the counsel on record. The said substantial questions of law are as hereunder.

2. Whether Ex.A-1 agreement of sale executed on insufficient stamp paper worth of Rs.2/- standing in the name of the third party other than the vendor or vendee is valid in the eye of law for seeking specific performance on the basis of it.

3. Whether the lower appellate court is correct in decreeing the suit for specific performance by drawing adverse interference on the basis of evidence on record.

4. Whether the lower appellate court is correct in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction relying upon the weakness of the defendant in the absence of any documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove her prima facie possession and title in respect of suit. schedule property by reversing the finding of the trial court wherein it is held that the plaintiff has no prima facie possession or title.

3. The appellant herein, the unsuccessful defendant, aggrieved by the reversing decree and judgment in A.S.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, had preferred the present second appeal and since the appellant died, the legal representatives were brought on record and they are at present prosecuting the present second appeal. Respondent in this second appeal, the plaintiff in the suit, instituted a suit in O.S.no.48 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Tekkali.

4. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues the court of first instance recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 and D.W.l, marked Exs.A-1 to A- 5 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and dismissed the suit. The matter was carried by way of appeal A.S.No.53 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sompet, transferred and re-numbered as A.S.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, and the appellate court after framing the point for consideration at para 8, on appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the court of first instance recorded erroneous findings and in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, the attestors, the plaintiff is bound to succeed and accordingly reversed the decree and judgment of the court of first instance. Hence, the present second appeal is filed.

5.Sri G.Hemachalam, learned counsel representing the appellant made the following submissions. The learned counsel would submit that here is an unfortunate case where the defendant, an illiterate woman, is said to have executed an agreement of sale. The learned counsel also would submit that she had taken a specific stand that the document in question is a forged document and also had taken a stand that the same was brought into existence with a view to harass her with the assistance of the attestors. The learned counsel also would submit that even if the evidence of P.W.3, the scribe, to be taken into consideration it is highly doubtful whether the document was executed by the executant at all. Even otherwise the scribe had not explained that the contents of the document had been read over and explained to her. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on a decision in SRI KISHORE RAY THAKUR BIJE V. SMT. BASANTI KUMAR DAS AND OTHERS(1). While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel would submit that on mere probabilities totally ignoring the evidence of P.W.3 and giving preference to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, the interested witnesses in P.W.1, the appellate court had reversed the well considered judgment of the court of first instance and hence the same cannot be sustained.

6. Per contra Sr