JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Suresh Reddy representing Bali Reddy and Ranga Reddy, the counsel representing the respective parties. 2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 11/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Markapur had preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and decree made therein decreeing the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The 1st plaintiff/1st respondent died and the 2nd respondent who is already on record had been declared as legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent also was brought on record as legal representative of the 1st respondent by order dated 28-3-1990 in C.M.P.No. 15985/89. 3. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint is that the appellant herein/defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs for Rs. 15,900/- and executed an agreement of sale on 28-3-1977 and it was also pleaded that the total sale consideration was paid to the plaintiffs and they were put in possession of the plaint schedule property and in spite of repeated demands the defendant had not executed the sale deed in their favour and hence on 19-9-1983, a registered notice was issued which was received by the defendant, but there was no reply and in the said circumstances, the present suit for specific performance had been instituted. 4. The defence taken by the appellant/defendant is as follows:It was pleaded in the written statement that the defendant never executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs and he never delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs. It was also further pleaded that the defendant owed Rs. 15,900/- to the 1st plaintiff under a pronote and executed an agreement of sale for the suit land in favour of the 1st plaintiff on the understanding that the 1st plaintiff will reconvey the same to the defendant whenever the defendant pays him the amount with interest. It was also pleaded that the land is in possession of the defendant only and the defendant is prepared to pay the amount with interest to the 1st plaintiff, but however, the 1st plaintiff is not interested in returning the agreement or execute a deed of reconveyance in his favour. It was also stated that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands and hence they are not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 5. It was also stated that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands and hence they are not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 5. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were settled:(1)Whether the agreement of sale dated 28-3-1977 is true, valid and binding on the defendant-(2)Whether the agreement set up by the defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff is true, valid and binding on plaintiffs-(3)Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and entitled to specific performance prayed for-(4)To what relief plaintiff is entitled to- 6. Before the trial Court, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and D.W. 1 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had ultimately decreed the suit for specific performance with costs and aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal had been preferred. 7. Sri Suresh Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/defendant had contended that though there are several discrepancies relating to the place of execution of Ex. A-1, Ex. A-1 - the agreement of sale, was believed. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the discrepancies. The learned Counsel further pleaded that the defence taken by the appellant/defendant is more convincing and also probable and the crucial aspect that this agreement is not the agreement which the defendant had executed, was not considered at all by the trial Court in proper perspective. The learned Counsel further contended that the appellant/defendant executed an agreement in favour of the 1st plaintiff only as he was due to him a sum of Rs. 15,900/- under a promissory note and it was with a specific understanding that the agreement should be returned to him on paying the amount with interest and for reasons best known the said agreement was suppressed and yet another agreement was pressed into service. The learned Counsel also contended that at any rate the relief of specific performance being equitable and discretionary relief, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court totally erred in decreeing the suit. 8. The learned Counsel also contended that at any rate the relief of specific performance being equitable and discretionary relief, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court totally erred in decreeing the suit. 8. Sri Ranga Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had taken me through paragraphs 5 to 12 of the Judgment of the trial Court and had contended that the reasons given by the trial Court are clear, cogent and convincing and except for the discrepancies relating to the place of execution, there is no other discrepancy relating to Ex. A-1 at all. The learned Counsel also contended that in view of the peculiar stand taken by the appellant/defendant, the trial Court had taken pains to compare the signatures and on comparison ultimately had arrived at the conclusion that Ex. A-1 is true, valid and binding and it is a finding recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. The learned Counsel also commented about the conduct of the appellant/defendant. The learned Counsel also pointed out that though notice had been issued, the appellant/defendant had not even chosen to give a reply and this itself shows that the transaction is a true transaction. The learned Counsel further contended that when a stand had been taken by the appellant/defendant that there was yet another agreement in favour of one of the plaintiffs only with certain recitals of returning the agreement of sale on condition of payment of the amount, the burden is definitely on him to establish the same and except the evidence of D.W. 1, no other evidence had been let in and hence the trial Court had exercised the discretion properly in decreeing the suit. 9. Heard both the counsel and also perused the material available on record. 10. In view of the respective contentions of the parties, the following Points arise for consideration in this Appeal:(1)Whether the agreement of sale Ex. A-1 is true, valid and binding on the appellant/defendant-(2)Whether the Judgment and decree granted by the trial Court are sustainable or liable to be interfered with in the appeal-(3)If so to what relief, the parties are entitled to-Points 1 and 2: The plaintiffs, to establish and prove Ex. A-1 is true, valid and binding on the appellant/defendant-(2)Whether the Judgment and decree granted by the trial Court are sustainable or liable to be interfered with in the appeal-(3)If so to what relief, the parties are entitled to-Points 1 and 2: The plaintiffs, to establish and prove Ex. A-1 transaction, had examined P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the plaintiffs in the suit and apart from this evidence, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 also had been examined. Ex. A-1 is the agreement of sale dated 28-3-1977 executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. But no doubt, the stand taken by the appellant/defendant is that no doubt he executed an agreement in favour of one of the plaintiffs and this is not the agreement. Ex. A-2 is the office copy of the notice and Ex. A-3 is the postal acknowledgement and there was no reply to the notice issued by the plaintiffs. Both P.W. 1 and also P.W. 4 had narrated all the details and had totally supported their case relating to the execution and also receipt of consideration under Ex. A-1. Apart from this evidence, P.W. 2 was examined who is a very old man and he deposed that Ex. A-1 agreement contains his signature as attestor and Ex. A-1 was executed by the defendant in his presence and he also deposed that Ex. A-1 was executed in respect of landed property and he does not know where the lands are situated and he further deposed that he does not remember the sale consideration agreed due to lapse of time and requested the counsel to read the agreement and then P.W. 2 had deposed that the contents in Ex. A-1 are true and he also deposed that the defendant signed in Ex. A-1 in his presence and he had attested the same at his request. P.W. 2 also deposed that he does not remember who drafted Ex. A-1, but had stated that Lanka Balakrishnaiah died and he had drafted Ex. A-1. No doubt, serious comment was made about this witness and certain contradictions. The trial Court had discussed the evidence of P.W. 2 in detail. No doubt in view of the nature of this witness and also the age, the trial Court had given convincing reasons why this witness can be relied upon. A-1. No doubt, serious comment was made about this witness and certain contradictions. The trial Court had discussed the evidence of P.W. 2 in detail. No doubt in view of the nature of this witness and also the age, the trial Court had given convincing reasons why this witness can be relied upon. Hence, apart from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, both the plaintiffs in the suit, the evidence of the attestor - P.W. 2, also is available on record. P.W. 3 is a Pleader's Clerk working under one Sri T. Nagabushan Rao. Advocate of Markapur and he also deposed that Venkata Seshaiah is his elder brother and he died one year back and he is fully acquainted with his handwriting and his signature and he worked as Karanam and he is a document writer and Ex. A-1 is in the handwriting of his brother Venkata Seshaiah and it contains the signature of his brother Venkata Seshaiah as scribe. In the cross-examination, nothing had been elicited except denying the very signature of his brother. P.W. 5 is another Pleader's Clerk working under Sri Narasimha Sastry, an Advocate of Markapur. He deposed that Lanka Balakrishnaiah worked as Pleader's Clerk under this Advocate till 1975 till his death and he known the handwriting of the said person and Ex. A-1 agreement contains the signature of Lanka Balakrishnaiah and he had identified the same. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that Balakrishnaiah had sons and he has not noted the date of death of Balakrishnaiah. 11. As against this evidence, the evidence of D.W. 1 alone is available. No doubt, he had deposed that he had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 1st plaintiff for Rs. 15,900/- in respect of the suit land and the 1st plaintiff agreed to return the suit land to him whenever he pays the amount. He also deposed that there is a recital to that effect in the agreement and he did not execute Ex. A-1 agreement in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and he is not aware of that document and the suit land is in his possession. In the cross-examination, no doubt it was suggested that he delivered possession of the suit land in pursuance of Ex. A-1 and he was deposing falsely. 12. Except the evidence of D.W. 1, there is no other evidence. In the cross-examination, no doubt it was suggested that he delivered possession of the suit land in pursuance of Ex. A-1 and he was deposing falsely. 12. Except the evidence of D.W. 1, there is no other evidence. Here is a peculiar case where the appellant/defendant had taken a stand that there is yet another agreement of sale executed only in favour of one of the plaintiffs and there is a particular recital in the said agreement. It is not explained what additional advantage the plaintiffs are going to derive by substituting the present agreement in the place of the yet another agreement, the defence taken by the appellant/defendant, in this regard. Even if such an agreement had been in existence, it is needless to say that the burden is on him to establish the same since he is coming with such a case. There is ample evidence on the part of the plaintiffs - the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, plaintiffs in the suit, and also the attestor, a good old man. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the conduct of the defendant also had been taken into consideration by the trial Court and the trial Court also had taken pains to compare the signatures and had given a finding that the signature on Ex. A-1 is that of the appellant/defendant only and in view of the said findings and also in view of the conduct of the appellant/defendant in not even giving a reply to the notice given by the plaintiffs calling upon him to execute a regular registered sale deed, I am of the opinion that the trial Court is well justified in ignoring the minor discrepancy relating to the place of execution of Ex. A-1 since the evidence is clear on all material aspects relating to the execution of Ex. A-1, i.e., passing of sale consideration and other essential aspects, and hence I do not see any reason to interfere with any of the findings which had been recorded by the trial Court in this regard inasmuch as all the findings had been recorded on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence.Point 3: In view of the findings recorded above, I am of the opinion that the Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the Appeal is bound to fail and the same is dismissed with costs.