( 1 ) THESE two appeals are preferred as against the Judgments and decrees made in O. S. No. 1302/87 and O. S. No. 175/90 on the file of III additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, one filed for declaration of title and other reliefs inclusive of the relief of possession and yet another suit filed praying for the relief of specific performance of reconveyance in relation to the self-same property. Both the matters were disposed of by a Common Judgment. It appears on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction the Appeal as against the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 175/90 was preferred to the I additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabab as o. S. No. 148/96 which was transferred to this Court and renumbered for the purpose of disposal with the other Appeal inasmuch as both arise out of Common Judgment. ( 2 ) IT may not be out of context if it is referred to at the outset itself that in A. S. No. 148/96 aforesaid, I. A. No. 780/97 was filed by appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 C. P. C. for reception of additional evidence i. e. , reconveyance: agreement dated 21-8-1974 and the registered sale deed dated 21-8-1974 bearing document No. 1347/74. Several reasons had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application why these documents are essential for the purpose of effective adjudication of the matters in controversy. Along with the said application the affidavit of third party Sri K. Venkat Reddy s/o. Sri K. Krishna Reddy, Advocate also was filed who had sworn to an affidavit in relation to the documents which are being produced by way of additional evidence before the appellate court which no doubt had been transferred to this Court to be heard along with yet another Appeal C. C. C. A. No. 73/96. ( 3 ) THE Counsel on record made submissions in elaboration putting forth their respective contentions on behalf of the respective parlies. Submissions of Sri Ramakrishna : Sri Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing the appellants in both these Appeals pointed out that the learned trial Judge had totally erred in dismissing the suit for enforcement of reconveyance mainly on the ground that the said document was not produced before the Court. Submissions of Sri Ramakrishna : Sri Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing the appellants in both these Appeals pointed out that the learned trial Judge had totally erred in dismissing the suit for enforcement of reconveyance mainly on the ground that the said document was not produced before the Court. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions had explained the facts and circumstances under which the same could not be produced. The learned Counsel also had further explained different litigations concerned with the property and the respective stands taken by the respective parties and would contend that the very fact that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 had taken a stand denying the very existence of reconveyance would definitely go to show that the stand taken by those parties is not correct stand since there is ample material available on record relating to the existence of reconveyance agreement whether the same had been produced before the Court or not. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the findings recorded by the trial Court while dealing with the question of limitation and would contend that the non-production of the reconveyance -agreement was made the main ground of attack and repeated findings had been recorded in this regard. In that view of the matter, inasmuch as the same is being produced in the interest of justice and also in the light of the explanation given both in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the third party affidavit of the Counsel, the application may have to be allowed. The learned Counsel also would submit that the very approach of the trial Court is erroneous since voluminous documentary evidence is available on record to show that an agreement relating to reconveyance of the self-same property and hence the rights of the parties under the said reconveyance unless if otherwise defeated the question of recovering possession by virtue ot ex. A-1 will not arise. The learned Counsel also in detail explained the several documents which would amply establish the existence of the reconveyance agreement and also had taken this Court through the said documents in detail. The learned Counsel had pointed out to exs. B-1, B-3, B-2, B-21, A-16, A-17, A-9, A-1 and also pointed out to the oral evidence available on record. The learned Counsel carefully had taken this Court through the contents of Ex. A-14 in detail. The learned Counsel had pointed out to exs. B-1, B-3, B-2, B-21, A-16, A-17, A-9, A-1 and also pointed out to the oral evidence available on record. The learned Counsel carefully had taken this Court through the contents of Ex. A-14 in detail. The Counsel also explained about certain prior litigations and pointed out to the relevant portions of the depositions and would contend that the evidence on record would clearly disclose that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 is taking a false stand to have some unlawful gain in the light of the present appreciation of the value of the property. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. Submissions of Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy : Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 in all fairness would submit that though the plaintiff R. K. Veni had taken the stand that no reconveyance agreement as such is in existence there is some material available on record relating to the existence of the reconveyance. The learned Counsel without admitting as such but however in alternative would contend that even assuming that such reconveyance agreement has been there, whether the same can be enforced. The learned Counsel would maintain that to enforce a reconveyance agreement time would be the essence of the contract. The relief itself being a discretionary relief a party who approaches the Court at the belated stage is not entitled to get such relief. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the pendency of the proceedings if any before the U. L. C. would be of no consequence and the same cannot save the limitation. The learned Counsel also in detail explained the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 and would maintain that the relief of soecifie prayed for in o. S. No. 175/90 cannot be granted at any stretch of imagination. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the cause of action and would contend that just with a view to save limitation some cause of action had been invented. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the role played by Partha Sarathy and also the evidence of DW-3 in particular and had pointed out to several portions thereof. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the cause of action and would contend that just with a view to save limitation some cause of action had been invented. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the role played by Partha Sarathy and also the evidence of DW-3 in particular and had pointed out to several portions thereof. The learned Counsel also had explained Exs. A-8, A-9, A-17, B-2, B-3, B-5, A-14, C-1 and also Exs. B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-20 in particular. The learned Counsel also commented about the inconsistent stands which are being taken relating to the custody of the documents and production of such documents at the appellate stage. While elaborating his submissions the Counsel also explained why the application for reception of additional evidence cannot be considered at this stage. The learned counsel also commented that Dw-3 had not even spoken to the terms of reconveyance and the contents thereof had not been proved. The mere existence of some reconveyance agreement may not be sufficient to get any relief whatsoever in relation to enforcement thereof. The terms are to be proved and unless the Court is satisfied in granting such relief otherwise by virtue of Ex. A-1 being the owner of the property R. K. Veni is bound to succeed. The learned Counsel in elaboration had explained the provisions of U. L. C. Act and the impact if any thereof on specific performance proceedings. The counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. ( 4 ) INASMUCH as both the suits aforesaid had t. een dealt with together and common evidence was recorded, both these matters are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. ( 5 ) THE evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, DW-1 to DW-4 had been recorded. Exs. A-1 A-19 and Exs. B-1 to B-21 and Exs. C-1 to C-9 also were marked. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record decreed the suit O. S. No. 1302/87 granting three months time to defendants to vacate the premises and dismissed the suit O. S. No. 175/90. As against the same as already aforesaid the appeals had been preferred, one to this Court and yet another to the I additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad which had been transferred to this Court and renumbered as Tr. C. C. C. A. No. 6/98 and both are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. As against the same as already aforesaid the appeals had been preferred, one to this Court and yet another to the I additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad which had been transferred to this Court and renumbered as Tr. C. C. C. A. No. 6/98 and both are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. ( 6 ) AS already referred to supra, the evidence was let-in in o. S. No. 1302/87 and the same was treated as evidence in o. S. No. 175/90 in view of the clubbing of both the suits and the joint trial. P. Ws. 1 to 3 and D. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A. 1 to a. 19, Exs. B. 1 to B. 21 and Exs. C. 1 to C. 9 were marked. ( 7 ) THE respective pleadings of the parties may bo glanced at before taking up the further discussion. R. K. Veni pleaded in o. S. No. 1302/87 as hereunder:-"the plaintiff is purchaser of property - premises bearing municipal No. 1-10-264 standing on an area of 4082 sq. yds. , situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad, from the original owner Chandramouli Appa Rao, S/o. Venkatappaiah through registered sale deed Doct. no. 1847 of 1974 dt. 21-8-74, Sub-Registrar, Marredpalli, Secunderabad. The vendor Shri appa Rao under the said Sale Deed delivered posession of the premises and delivered constructive possession of house retaining possession of the house with him as tenant and with an understanding that he would pay all the taxes for the premises in future also. The plaintiff submits that the said vendor Appa Rao continued in possession of the premises as tenant. On 1st april, 1976 the said vendor Appa Rao inducted the defendant into possession of the suit house consisting of three rooms, as his tenant i. e. , as sub-tenant. Ever since the defendant is in possession of the house as sub-tenant. The house is fully described in Schedule- a and delineated in the plan. One M. Padmavathi approached the plaintiff offering to purchase 320 sq. yds. , shown in schedule b and delineated in the plan and the plaintiff agreed to sell the same to her and executed an agreement of sale in her favour and put in possession thereof. The house is fully described in Schedule- a and delineated in the plan. One M. Padmavathi approached the plaintiff offering to purchase 320 sq. yds. , shown in schedule b and delineated in the plan and the plaintiff agreed to sell the same to her and executed an agreement of sale in her favour and put in possession thereof. The plaintiff submits that to the south the said plot there is a compound wall of which the plaintiff is the owner and also the open land beyond the said wall to the south which stretched up to House No. 1-10-264 of which also the plaintiff is the owner and of which the defendant is the sub-tenant. There is also a well in the north-west corner of the land of which the plaintiff is the owner. While matters stood thus, the defendant is canvassing ownership of the house and well and the compound wall since January, 1987 and with the help of unsocial elements since 1987 is trying to demolish the compound wall and occupy open land abutting the house and also occupy land beyond the compound wall on North and make new constructions with a view to illegally occupy and claim rights thereon. In fact, the land admeasuring. 120 sq. yds. , to the north of the compound is subject matter of sale to m. Padmavathi as shown in the Plan AB. 1j. The plaintiff submits that the defendant has no right to demolish, remove, alter and etc. to the existing structures and house. M. Padmavathi has objected to the attempts of the defendant. The defendant with the help of unsocial elements is bent upon to do the above acts and cause loss and damage to the plaintiff and set up false claims over the house. Hence, this suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff submits that C. Venkata Krishna, advocate, is looking after her affairs before the Ceiling authorities, Municipal Authority and Revenue Authorities and as such, the original sale deed and other papers are with him. The Advocate has informed that the occupants are filed authorities. Hence, the original sale deed could not be filed. But C. C. of sale deed is filed herewith. As soon as the original is secured, the same will be filed into Court. "the suit is filed praying for declaration of title and also for consequential reliefs. The Advocate has informed that the occupants are filed authorities. Hence, the original sale deed could not be filed. But C. C. of sale deed is filed herewith. As soon as the original is secured, the same will be filed into Court. "the suit is filed praying for declaration of title and also for consequential reliefs. The 1st defendant filed written statement resisting the suit and taking a stand that plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over plaint schedule property for entry into an agreement of sale with third party. It was also pleaded that the copy of the plan of the schedule property in the plaint is not supplied to the defendant. It was also further pleaded as hereunder:-"there is mischief in the plan in saying common path and land of plaintiff and it is motivated to accommodate one Smt. M. Padmavathi, wife of M. Parthasarathi. The allegations in para 3 of the plaint are motivated to substantiate and support the illegal claim. of the said padmavathi, who filed a suit for injunction O. S. No. 530/87 pending on the file of the Court of the First Assistant Judge and to the detriment of the bonafide claim of this defendant in O. S. No. 698/87 on the file of the First Assistant Judge for demolition of the illegal encroached constructed wall into the land of this defendant. The said Smt. Padmavathi having failed to get temporary injunction due to concurrent finding in IA. No. 58/87 and in CMA. No. 191/87 joined hands with the plaintiff and this suit is colluded one with ulterior motive to dispossess the defendant of his legitimate and bonafide claim over the suit property in OS. No. 698/87 and 530/87. The defendant further submits lhat he is in possession and in occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff has not supplied to the defendant the plan referred to in the plaint for verification and vague language has been employed in the schedule of the property in the capacity ever since 28-3-1976 as an absolute owner when this defendant paid advanced and earnest money towards the sale consideration of the suit property and obtained the physical possession of the suit property. He was never in the possession in the capacity of a tenant or sub-tenant. The full and final satisfaction receipt was passed on 28-3-1976. He was never in the possession in the capacity of a tenant or sub-tenant. The full and final satisfaction receipt was passed on 28-3-1976. Ever since the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property after constructing a uniform compound wall all around without any objection or interference from any quarter of whatsoever nature for over 12 years and above. It is also submitted that in fact the defendant is the real and absolute owner of the property to the extent of 1000 sq. mtrs. , situated within the compound wall constructed by the defendant ever since 1976. The defendant got right to protect his property against the encroachers and land-grabbers with all his might and it is the spirit of the construction, but as a dutiful citizen he never resorted to such activities at any point of time. But he is seeking his remedies through Courts for mandatory injunction in OS. No. 698/87 to demolish the wall and prosecuting M. Parathasarathi Rao, the husband of Smt. M. Padmavathi the alleged General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff for trespass in CC. No 79/87, is filed. Thus, the defendant is exercising and vindicating his rights over the property through proper channel. Therefore, the allegation that he attempted to demolish the compound wall and occupy the open land does not arise. The present suit is in the form of malicious prosecution to protect smt. Padmavathi and her husband Parthasarathi in Civil and criminal Proceedings. C. Venkatakrishna, Advocate, is no other than the legal heir of late Apparao, who is the real landlord of the suit schedule property. The defendant further averred and disputed the valuation of the scheduled properly and contended that it was done so with a view to change the jurisdiction. It is further averred that smt. Padmavathi filed OS. No. 530/87 for protection of encroached and illegal constructed wall pending service of notices in the said suit, this defendant also filed a suit for mandatory injunction OS. No. 698/87 on the file of the First assistant Judge, Secunderabad. Smt. Padmavathi raised the contention in her plaint that she entered into an agreement of sale with C. Vanikumar in respect of the suit schedule property therein and there is no whisper in this plaint about the same. The parties were totally strangers while the arguments in OS. Nos. No. 698/87 on the file of the First assistant Judge, Secunderabad. Smt. Padmavathi raised the contention in her plaint that she entered into an agreement of sale with C. Vanikumar in respect of the suit schedule property therein and there is no whisper in this plaint about the same. The parties were totally strangers while the arguments in OS. Nos. 530 and 698/87 commenced the husband of Smt. Padmavathi, namely M. Purthasarathi created certain documents which are apparently created for the purpose of defence in OS. No. 530/87 and OS. No. 698/87. He contested in the said suits in the capacity of power of attorney holder for the plaintiff and also C. Vanikumar, legal representative of Apparao. The Parthasarathi filed a registered general power of attorney of the plaintiff wherein it is stated that Smt. R. K. Veni (plaintiff) has reconveyed the said property on the same day when the suit schedule property was registered in her favour by late C. Apparao after receiving the total consideration and a receipt to that effect was signed by her on 21-8-1974. On 25-10-1976 the plaintiff made a representation to the Secretary, Revenue department under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling act that she had reconveyed the said property. Thus, it is clear that she reconveyed the property to the landlord C. Apparao and she was never in possession of the suit schedule property. The representation of the plaintiff was accepted and also acted upon by the Land Ceiling authorities and the excess land of late Apparao was acquired by the Government from Apparao. The said apparao again in turn entered into an agreement of sale along with his legal heirs with this defendant after receiving the total sale consideration and delivered possession of the suit schedule property in the year 1976. Thus it is clear that this defendant came into possession and occupation of the suit property and is in enjoyment of the same for over 12 years without any interference from any quarter of whatsoever nature as such, the defendant is the absolute owner. It is also clear that the present suit is motivated and a malacious intention is there to cause wrongful loss to this defendant and to make wrongful gain for herself to the detriment of the legitimate and bonafide claim of rights by this defendant against the encroacher i. e. , Smt. Padmavathi. It is also clear that the present suit is motivated and a malacious intention is there to cause wrongful loss to this defendant and to make wrongful gain for herself to the detriment of the legitimate and bonafide claim of rights by this defendant against the encroacher i. e. , Smt. Padmavathi. the plaintiff having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property is indulging the unfair practice to establish rights over the suit property. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and already the suits in respect of the same cause of action are pending which bars the present suit. "the 2nd defendant filed a written statement in the said suit resisting the suit pleadings as hereunder:-"it was pleaded that his father C. Apparao during his lifetime purchased from Uppalaraj with his moneys the immovable properly consisting of lands and building in survey Nos. 203, 204 and 205 admeasuring 3423 sq. yds. , with the building bearing No. 1-10-264 situated at begumpet, Secunderabad under the registered sale deed dated 16-12-1960. The possession of the property was given and since then C. Apparao became the absolute owner and possessor of the property. On 27-4-1979 Apparao died leaving behind him this defendant s elder brother C. Vanikumar and this defendant. Vanikumar died on 17-8-1988. During the lifetime of Apparao he is in need of money to perform the marriage of his grand-daughter (ie. , the daughter of Vanikumar) and approached the plaintiff to lend money. The plaintiff agreed to lend money subject to the condition that Apparao shall execute a sale deed in her favour and in turn she would also execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of Apparao. Accordingly, Apparao executed a registered sale deed and the plaintiff also in turn executed a deed of reconveyance in favour of Apparao. Apparao never gave physical possession to the plaintiff at any time and he has been enjoying the physical possession ever since 1960 i. e. , from the time of his purchase. Apparao repaid the said amount during his lifetime on 13-6-1977. The plaintiff also gave a receipt for the same pursuant to the deed of reconveyance agreeing to reconvey the property in favour of Apparao or his nominee. Time was not essence of contract. Apparao repaid the said amount during his lifetime on 13-6-1977. The plaintiff also gave a receipt for the same pursuant to the deed of reconveyance agreeing to reconvey the property in favour of Apparao or his nominee. Time was not essence of contract. At that time, when there was a necessity for obtaining permission of alienation from the urban Land Ceiling Authority and the plaintiff applied for the same on 25-10-1976, in favour of Apparao or his nominee. The plaintiff did not exercise any rights of ownership at any time in view of the understanding between the parties. Apparao resided in the house at Begumpet for several years and the children of Apparao have been in occupation of the house. The plaintiff gave a set of papers signed by her to C. Apparao during his lifetime before the urban Land Ceiling Authority. To the knowledge of defendant, C. Apparao and his elder son Vanikumar sold a portion of the land admeasuring about 1600 sq. yards to other persons and they are now in possession of the said land and constructed small houses thereon. Apparao also filed a petition for permission of exemption from the Urban land Ceiling Authority in case No. 2073 of 1916. Apparao during his lifetime entered into an agreement of sale dated 2-3-1976 with defendant No. 1in respect of the house bearing No. 1-10-264 admeasuring 1000 sq. meters and the sale consideration was Rs. 23,000/-, and has received a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as advance and delivered possession to defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1paid the full consideration through cheque belonging to the Government to Apparao and Apparao agreed to execute a sale deed after getting reconveyance in his name by the plaintiff on obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. Apparao died intestate. In the light of above facts, the defendant denies all the other allegations made in the plaint. This defendant also disputed the market value of the suit property as stated by the plaintiff. It is also averred that the plaintiff has no cause of action and has no right to file the suit. This defendant filed suit for specific performance on the file of this Court numbered as os. No. 175/90 and it is pending. This defendant also disputed the market value of the suit property as stated by the plaintiff. It is also averred that the plaintiff has no cause of action and has no right to file the suit. This defendant filed suit for specific performance on the file of this Court numbered as os. No. 175/90 and it is pending. " ( 8 ) ON the strength of these pleadings, the following issues were settled in O. S. No. 1302/87:- 1) Whether the plaint allegations are true and correct? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration as prayed for? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? 4) To what relief? ( 9 ) O. S. NO. 175/90 is filed by C. Venkatakrishra, shown as 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 1302/87, who was added as per Orders in i. A. No. 595/90, dated 4-10-1990, and also the sons of his brother c. Vanikumar as against the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 shown as 1st defendant and another Parthasarathy shown as 2nd defendant and e. V. Subrahmanyam, who is added as 3rd defendant, who is the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 1302/87. The suit is filed claiming the relief of specific performance of reconveyance agreement in relation to the plaint schedule property. Ft was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder:-"c. Appa Rao, father of the 1st plaintiff and paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs 2 to 4, during his lifetime had purchased with his monies, immovable properties comprising of lands and buildings/thereon, bearing no. 1-10-264, situated at Begumpet, Secunderabad on 16-12-1960 under a registered sale deed bearing document no. 1811 of Book No. 1, volume No. 20 at pages 382 to 384 in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Secunderabad executed by Uppala Raja in favour of the said C. Appa Rao and physical possession was handed over to him accordingly. Thus the said C. Appa Rao became the absolute owner and possessor of the above said immovable property and since then he has been in enjoyment as such. The said C. Appa rao died on 2/-4-1979 leaving the following heirs as per hindu Law entitled to the said immovable properties. C. Vani Kumar (died on 17-8-88) C. Venkatakrishna 1. Son - C. Suri Dutt 2. Son - C. Venkateswar Rao 3. The said C. Appa rao died on 2/-4-1979 leaving the following heirs as per hindu Law entitled to the said immovable properties. C. Vani Kumar (died on 17-8-88) C. Venkatakrishna 1. Son - C. Suri Dutt 2. Son - C. Venkateswar Rao 3. Son - C. Trimoorthi in 1974 the said C. Appa Rao needed money for the purpose of performing the marriage of his eldest son i. e. , c. Vani Kumar s daughter and so approached the 1st defendant who agreed to lend money Rs. 8,000/- on condition that C. Appa Rao should execute a Sale Deed in her favour and she in turn execute a Deed of Reconveyance in favour of C. Appa Rao. As per the said arrangement, the said C. Appa Rao executed a registered sale deed bearing no. 1947 registered in Book No. 1 Volume 2 at pages 473 to 476 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Securderabad and in turn the 1st defendant executed a Deed of Reconveyance in favour of C. Appa Rao. It is necessary to mention here that c. Appa Rao continued to be in actual physical possession and possession was never delivered to defendant or to any one at all. C. Appa Rao repaid the said amount during his life time on 13-6-1977 and the 1st defendant gave a full and complete receipt for the same and as per the deed of reconveyance further agreed to reconvey the above said property (immovable) in his favour or to any nominee of c. Appa Rao. Time was not the essence of the contract under Deed of Reconveyance referred to above and during that period the parties had to obtain permission for alienation from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and the 1st defendant applied for it on 25-10-1976 for alienation in favour of C. Appa Rao or his nominee. It is submitted that the 1st defendant never exercised any rights of ownership at any point of time in view of the above arrangement and C. Appa Rao lived in the house at begumpet, Secunderabad, for number of years and thereafter his sons and daughters were in occupation of the house. The 1st defendant gave one set of papers signed by her to C. Appa Rao during his lifetime filed by her before the Land Ceiling Authorities. The 1st defendant gave one set of papers signed by her to C. Appa Rao during his lifetime filed by her before the Land Ceiling Authorities. To the full knowledge of the 1st defendant C. Appa Rao and his eldest son C. Vani Kumar, elder brother of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 sold a portion of land admeasuring approximately 1600 sq. yds. , to other persons and they are in possession of the said portion of land and constructed small houses thereon. The said C. Appa Rao also filed petition for the said permission of exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling Laws in Case no. 2073 of 1976. The matters are still pending with the said authorities. The said C. Appa Rao during his life time entered into an agreement to sell dated 2-3-76 in favour of e. V. Subrahmanyam in respect of the house at h. No. 1-10-264, admeasuring 1000 Sq. Mtrs. for a sum of rs. 20,000/- and received an advance of Rs. 1,000/- by way of advance and gave possession of the said immovable house properly to him. E. V. Subrahmanyam subsequently paid the full consideration through Government Cheque to C. Appa Rao agreed to execute a sale deed on his getting the reconveyance Deed executed by the 1st defendant and permission being granted by Urban Land Ceiling authorities who applied for as mentioned above. C. Appa rao died on 2/-4-1979 and without executing any valid will, leaving the plaintiff No. 1, C. Vani Kumar, father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 as legal heirs entitled to succeed under hindu Law of Mitakshara School of Inheritance. They are all entitled to specific performance of the suit schedule immovable property. The defendant No. 2 took away the original reconveyance Deed from late C. Vani Kumar and plaintiffs 2 to 4 from whom he obtained Power of Attorney on 19-3-1987. During the lifetime of C. Vani Kumar, the relationship with the 1st plaintiff was strained due to evil designs of defendant No. 2, who was adversely disposed towards the plaintiff. The said C. Vani Kumar died due to cancer on 17-8-1988 leaving the plaintiffs 2 10 4 as his heirs entitled to his estate. The said Deed of Reconveyance was executed by defendant No. 1in favour of C. Appa Rao. The said C. Vani Kumar died due to cancer on 17-8-1988 leaving the plaintiffs 2 10 4 as his heirs entitled to his estate. The said Deed of Reconveyance was executed by defendant No. 1in favour of C. Appa Rao. The defendant No. 2 is hereby called upon to file in Court and produce the said Deed of Reconveyance made by the 1st defendant in favour of C. Appa Rao. Even in the notices and notifications in the name of C. Appa Rao and his heirs alone figured and the name of the 1st defendant never appeared. It is incumbent on the 1st defendant to get the permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities. While the matters stood thus, it is submitted that the 1st defendant with evil intention to grab the property and with oblique motives filed O. S. No. 1302/87 in the Court of the III Additional judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad making false allegations against E. V. Subrahmanyam and the plaintiffs. It is very clear from the condect of of the 1st defendant about her evil intentions to avoid her liabilities to perform her part of the obligations under the said Deed of reconveyance Deed even though the plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 have always been still ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations and C. Appa Rao was also always ready and willing to perform the obligations during his life time. The defendant no. I though received the monies in full, never performed her par; of agreement. The 2nd defendant is the G. P. A. for the 1st defendant and both of them in collusion are trying to alienate the suit schedule immovable property and occupy the land though not being in possession at any point of time No suit was filed earlier by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 for similar relief against the defendants or any one claiming under them and no such suit is pending in any Court. "the 1st defendant filed written statement resisting the suit and pleading as hereunder:-"in reply to para No. 3 of the plaint, this defendant submits that in 1974 Sri C. Appa Rao who is the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and the grand father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 had executed and registered an absolute sale deed dated 21-8-1974 bearing document No. 1347 of 1974 in respect of property premises bearing Municipal No. 1-10-264 standing an area of 4082 sq. yds. , forming part of Sy. Nos. 203, 204 and 205 situated at Begumpet, Secunderabad, by receiving the entire sale consideration amount from this defendant No. 1 and also delivered possession of the property this defendant retaining the possession of the house with him as tenant. It is denied that this defendant has executed a deed of Reconveyance in favour of Sri C. Appa Rao, and the said c. Appa Rao continued to be in actual possession of the property and possession was never delivered to this defendant and this defendant gave full and complete receipt for the consideration of the alleged deed of the reconveyance, and further agreed to reconvey the alleged suit immovable property in his favour or any of the nominees of C. Appa Rao are all false and baseless mischievous and concocted for the purpose of this suit, hence denied in toto. The plaint is totally silent about the date reconveyance deed and there is no evidence to show when and where the alleged reconveyance deed was executed. In reply to para No. 4 of the plaint it is false that this defendant never exercised any right of ownership at any point of time and the C. Appa Rao and thereafter his sons and daughters were in occupation of the house. It is false that C. Appa Rao and his eldest son C. Vani Kumar sold a portion of land admeasuring 1600 sq. yds. , to other persons and they are in possession of the property hence denied. It is denied that C. Appa Rao during his lifetime entered into an agreement of sale to sell the house admeasuring 100 sq. yds. , to E. V. Subrahmanyam and received the entire sale consideration amount subsequently, as a owner of the suit schedule property. All the other allegations in this para are hereby denied. The plaintiffs herein are put to strict proof of the same. yds. , to E. V. Subrahmanyam and received the entire sale consideration amount subsequently, as a owner of the suit schedule property. All the other allegations in this para are hereby denied. The plaintiffs herein are put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that E. V. Subrahmanyam was inducted by Sri C. Appa Rao as sub-tenant into a portion consisting of three rooms. It is evident from the letter written by Sri c. Vani Kumar, the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 herein, that e. V. Subrahmanyam was tenant and he has been inducted by sri C. Appa Rao, as sub-tenant and that they arc responsible for the same, to this defendant. Hence the alleged agreement of sale entered by Sri C. Apoa Rao with e. V. Subrahmanyam and receipt of the consideration amount from E. V. Subrahmanyam and all false, hence denied. The contents of para No. 5 are totally false, baseless and concocted for purpose of filing of this malacious and fraudulent suit. Hence, denied in toto. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. With regard to allegations made in para No. 6 of the plaint, this defendant submits that she has filed the suit o. S. No. 1302/87 for eviction against E. V. Subrahmanyam which is pending on the file of the 3rd Additional Judge, city Civil Court at Secunderabad. It is denied that the defendant No. 2 is the G. P. A. , of this defendant and in collusion of defendants are trying to alienate the said suit property and occupy the land, are all false, hence denied in toto. It is submitted that this defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the wife of 2nd defendant to sell the property of 320 sq. yds. , in S. Nos. 203, 204 and 205, of 4082 sq. yds. , of the property to the wife of the defendant No. 2 this defendant has agreed to execute a G. P. A. in favour of the defendant No. 2 reposing confidence on him to do pairavi on behalf of this defendant before the Ceiling authorities and other affairs connected with the property of this defendant. The defendant No. 2 showed a draft G. P. A. which was approved on 10-4-1987. The defendant No. 2 showed a draft G. P. A. which was approved on 10-4-1987. Later, he altered the contents while securing signatures on the fair and final g. P. A. with ulterior motive to deprive rights over the property of this defendant and to grab the property with collusion of the plaintiffs and also took signatures on several papers including vakalats etc. After knowing the facts of the G. P. A. , which was obtained by the defendant no. 2 by playing fraud upon this defendant, this defendant immediately has revoked the same by sending registered letter and was also cancelled the said G. P. A. , through registered cancellation deed. "the 2nd defendant also filed written statement which is as hereunder:- "the contents of para No. 2 are hereby denied, C. Vani kumar deceased son of C. Appa Rao, during his lifetime, to the information of this defendant was very well settled in life and there was no need and necessity for Appa Rao to have taken a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from 1st defendant for the purpose of marriage of second daughter of Sri Vanikumar. It is submitted that the sale deed dated 21-8-1974 is supported by consideration though later C. Appa Rao had received much more amount than what is mentioned in the sale deed. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The alleged deed of reconveyance is hereby denied. Jn reply to para 3 of the plaint, it is submitted that c. Appa Rao continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property as tenant of 1st defendant, and not in his own right as absolute owner. The alleged agreement dated 2-3-1976 in favour of E. V. Subrahmanyam is fictitious document created for the purpose of this suit as is evident from the quantum of consideration mentioned therein which works out 20/- per sq. meter, whereas the then prevailing market rate in the year 1976 in and around the suit schedule property sq. not less than Rs. 200/ -. The contentions of para No. 4 are denied in toto. It is beyond human comprehension as to how plaintiff No. 1 and his brother C. Vani Kumar could succeed to the suit scheduled property in the year 1974 in the presence of registered Sale Deed dated 21-8-1974 as such the said alleged succession is denied. 200/ -. The contentions of para No. 4 are denied in toto. It is beyond human comprehension as to how plaintiff No. 1 and his brother C. Vani Kumar could succeed to the suit scheduled property in the year 1974 in the presence of registered Sale Deed dated 21-8-1974 as such the said alleged succession is denied. The allegations made in para No. 5 are false, fabricated, fictitious and tissues of lies and concocted for purpose of filing of this frivolous suit, hence denied. It is denied that this defendant has taken away the alleged original reconveyance deed from late C. Vani Kumar and plaintiffs 2 to 4. It is submitted that late Vani Kumar and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 did not give any papers regarding this suit scheduled property, but simply executed a G. P. A. , promising to handover all necessary papers in particular c. Venkata Krishna, the 1st plaintiff who imported that the papers are with him as he is looking after the affairs of the property and family of C. Appa Rao, and copies of all documents pertaining to the property are filed before the urban Land Ceiling Authorities. In the above circumstances it is preposterous to call upon this defendant to submit the alleged documents, which were not at all handed over to him. This defendant takes a serious note of such wild allegations and reserves his right to claim damages against the plaintiffs for the illegal attempts made by the plaintiff to tarnish his image and bring disrepute to him. This defendant is not at all concerned with the contents of para No. 6 of the plaint. It is vehemently denied that this defendant in collusion with the defendant No. 1, he is attempts to alienate the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The defendant in her right to strict proof of the same. The defendant in her right s lawful and absolute owner of suit scheduled property is entitled to deal the suit schedule property in any manner she pleased and the plaintiffs have no session over the suit scheduled property as such are estoppel from raising any contention in respect of suit scheduled property. The defendant in her right s lawful and absolute owner of suit scheduled property is entitled to deal the suit schedule property in any manner she pleased and the plaintiffs have no session over the suit scheduled property as such are estoppel from raising any contention in respect of suit scheduled property. ( 10 ) ON the strength of the pleadings, the following Issues were setlled:- 1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of reconveyance of suit schedule property as prayed for? 2) Whether the document dated 21-8-1974 executed by c. Appa Rao is absolute sale executed in favour of defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 never executed any reconveyance deed as contended by plaintiffs? 3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4) Whether the Court Fee paid is insufficient? 5) Whether the defendant No. 2 has got any right in respect of the suit property? 6) To what relief? ( 11 ) INCIDENTALLY, it may be referred to that one Padmavathi filed o. S. No. 530/87 claiming the relief of perpetual injunction as against e. V. Subrahmanyam and the said suit was dismissed and as against that A. S. No. 147/97 was filed on the file of I Addl. Chief Judge, City civil Court, Secunderabad, and by virtue of transfer the said matter also was heard along with this appeal though a separate Judgment was delivered and the same will be dealt with at the appropriate stage. ( 12 ) INASMUCH as common questions arise for consideration in these appeals and inasmuch as common evidence had been receded, it would be appropriate to deal with the following points for consideration which would arise in both the appeals in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, (he findings recorded by the trial court and the submissions made by the respective 1) Whether the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 is entitled for the relief of declaration and the consequential reliefs prayed for in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) Whether the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 175/90 pre entitled for the relief of specific performance prayed for in relation to the reconveyance agreement in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3) Whether I. A. No. 780/97 in A. S. No. 148/96 for reception of additional evidence be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) Whether the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 175/90 pre entitled for the relief of specific performance prayed for in relation to the reconveyance agreement in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3) Whether I. A. No. 780/97 in A. S. No. 148/96 for reception of additional evidence be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 4) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to? ( 13 ) POINTS No. 1and 2:- The factual details are clear as reflected from the respective pleadings of the parties. The principal question which arises in O. S. No. 1302/87 is the first point and the principal question which arises in O. S. No. 175/90 is the second point and since these points are inter-dependent, both the points are being discussed together for the purpose of convenience. ( 14 ) THE case of R. K. Veni is that she purchased the plaint schedule property by virtue of a sale deed dated 21-8-1974 from Chandramouli appa Rao and the registration copy was marked as Ex. A. 1 and the plan annexed thereto was marked as Ex. A. 2. The original ownership of Appa Rao in relation to the property is not in serious controversy. The stand taken by the legal heirs of Appa Rao is that at the time of execution of the original of Ex. A. 1, R. K. Veni executed a Deed of reconveyance also with a condition that the property would be registered in the name of Appa Rao after payment of Rs. 8,000/ -. It is also not in serious controversy that actual physical possession was not delivered and only constructive possession was taken by R. K. Veni and the stand taken by R. K. Veni is that Appa Rao was continuing as tenant. The specific case of R. K. Veni is that this property was sold by appa Rao to celebrate the marriage of his granddaughter. It is no doubt true that the stand taken by the heirs of Appa. Rao that the Deed of Reconveyance was taken away by P. W. 3 Parthasarathi from vanikumar. Though the whole controversy revolved around this document, the same was not produced before the Court. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to have a look at certain findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard. Rao that the Deed of Reconveyance was taken away by P. W. 3 Parthasarathi from vanikumar. Though the whole controversy revolved around this document, the same was not produced before the Court. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to have a look at certain findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard. It is pertinent to note that serious comment was made at several places in the Judgment on the non-production of the said document but however the appropriate findings in this regard at paras 13, 15 and 34 may be specifically referred to in this regard. The learned Judge observed at para 13 as hereunder:-"coming to the contention of defendant No. 2, his father repaid the amount of Rs. 8,000/- under the deed of reconveyance. But no explanation is coming forth for not placing the said document. When the amount was repaid, why a registered document in favour of Appa Rao is not obtained also is not explained. On taking into consideration of the documents relied on by the defendants, there is any amount of inconsistency in placing the real facts before the court. This suit O. S. No. 1302/87 is filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff and for recovery of possessions besides asking for permanent injunction. So, it is for the plaintiff to establish her title so as to get the reliefs prayed by her in her favour. "at para 15 the learned Judge observed as hereunder:-"ex. B. 1 is the form of notice it was signed by r. K. Veni (plaintiff) wherein it is stated that at Col. 7 - conditional sale deed for an extent of 4082 sq. yds. , covered by survey Nos. 203, 204 and 205, Municipal No. 1-10-264. Ex. B. 2 is the application dated 25-10-1976 addressed to the secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. These two documents are admitted by the plaintiff. Though it is stated in Ex. B. 1 that it is a conditional sale deed, on a consideration of Ex. A. 1 recitals, it is nowhere stated that the sale is conditional one. The plaintiff cannot give a go by to her declarations given before the Competent Authority under the Urban Land ceiling Act. But one thing is certain that even if there is any deed of reconveyance, since it has not seen the light of the day, the same cannot be considered. The plaintiff cannot give a go by to her declarations given before the Competent Authority under the Urban Land ceiling Act. But one thing is certain that even if there is any deed of reconveyance, since it has not seen the light of the day, the same cannot be considered. For a moment sake though not conceded if it is assumed that there is a deed of reconveyance as parties admitted it, that itself would not create any right to Apparao, when once he sold the property under a registered sale deed on receiving the sale consideration, which is in existence in favour of the plaintiff. No steps are taken during the lifetime of Apparao to have a registered instrument in his favour for the suit schedule property duty executed by the plaintiff if really he paid Rs. 8,000/- as per the deed of reconveyance,"while deciding issue No. 3 in O. S. No. 175/90 at para 34, the learned judge observed as hereunder:-"on the point of limitation raised by the defendant No. 1in the suit, no doubt, the plaintiffs never raised their little finger even though the first plaintiff and his elder brother Vanikumar fully aware of the fact that their right after C. Apparao executed a sale deed in 1974 under original of Ex. A. 1. Added to that the first plaintiff herein knew about the litigation. The first plaintiff has also appeared on behalf of R. K. Veni as an Advocate in some ceiling proceedings. It is not as though that the first defendant is not the owner of the property, but what the first plaintiff is contending that there is a reconveyance deed executed by defendant No. 1 but the reconveyance deed is not placed. So much weight cannot be given to the oral evidence of the first plaintiff herein who was examined as DW. 3 in o. S. No. 1302/87. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden of the plaintiffs herein to establish that their suit is within time is not discharged. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 do not know anything because their father Vanikumar acted on behalf of the defendant No. 1 herein in selling some portion of the suit schedule property on her behalf. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden of the plaintiffs herein to establish that their suit is within time is not discharged. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 do not know anything because their father Vanikumar acted on behalf of the defendant No. 1 herein in selling some portion of the suit schedule property on her behalf. Further more, their father took up the responsibility to pay the rents after the death of his father for himself and on behalf of his brother (Plaintiff No. 1 in this O. S. No. 175/90), when the defendant No. 3 in o. S. No. 175/90 was put in possession of the schedule house. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 175/90 contends that under Specific Relief Act, the relief of specific performance is a discretionary one. So, the delay in filing the suit extending up to the period of limitation, but not beyond, therefore, the specific performance cannot be refused on ground of delay. In support of his contention, he cited a decision reported in AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh, 393. On a reading of this decision, it would not be applicable to the present facts on hand for the reason that there is no reconveyance deed nor there is any positive evidence to believe the oral contention of the plaintiff No. 1/dw. 3. Therefore, I hold on issue No. 3 that the suit is barred by limitation in O. S. No. 175/90. " ( 15 ) AT the outset it may be stated that the stand taken by R. K. Veni is one of total denial of existence of any reconveyance agreement. It is one thing to say that the reconveyance agreement cannot be enforced by virtue of bar of limitation or by virtue of other defences available in defeating such documents and it is yet another thing to say that there is no such document at all in existence. Ex. B. 3 reads as hereunder:- 13-6-1977 receipt the reconveyance deed dated 21-8-1974 was executed by me in favour of Shri C. Appa Rao S/o. Sri c. Venkatappiah undertaking to reconvey the entire property described in the schedule of Sale Deed dated 21-8-1974, registered No. 1347 of 1974 in Book No. 1, Volume 288, pages No. 473 to 476. In pursuance of the said agreement of reconveyance, I have received the entire amount of rs. In pursuance of the said agreement of reconveyance, I have received the entire amount of rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) mentioned in the said agreement of reconveyance and I have no further claim. I undertake to reconvey the entire property described in the schedule of the said Sale Deed in favour of C. Appa rao, son of C. Venkatappiah or any other person or persons desired by him. Sd/- r. K. Veni 13-6-1977 apart from Ex. B. 3, there is ample documentary evidence which would go to show that in fact a reconveyance agreement was entered into between the parties in relation to the original of Ex. A. 1. P. W. 1 r. K. Veni was examined on commission and P. W. 2 is the husband of r. K. Veni. P. W. 3 is M. Parthasarathi - D. 2 in O. S. No. 175/90 and agreement-holder with P. W. 1. DW. 1 is E. V. Subrahmanyam - 1st defendant in O. S. No. 1302/87 and D. 3 in O. S. No. 175/90. DW2 is a resident of Brahmanwadi, Begumpet. D. W. 3 is C. Venkata Krishna d. 2 in O. S. No. 1302/87 and plaintiff No. 1 in O. S. No. 175/90. DW. 4 is plaintiff No. 4 in O. S. No. 175/90. The documentary evidence relied upon by the parties which had been marked as Ex. A series, Ex. B series and Ex. C series are as hereunder:-