L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE defendants in O. S. No. 670 of 1976 in the Court of the Principal district Munsif, Madanapalle filed this second appeal. The transaction, which is the subject matter of these proceedings, was between the deceased first appellant and first respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as the appellant and the respondent. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the respondent for a decree, directing the appellant to refund a sum of Rs. 4,500/-, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It was pleaded that the appellant offered to sell an extent of Ac. 0. 21 cents in Sy. No. 958 of Sakirevuvaripalli village of Chittoor district for a consideration of Rs. 4,500/ -. An agreement of sale is said to have been executed on 16. 01. 1976. It was alleged that the entire consideration for the land was paid, but at a later point of time, notices were received from the third parties, claiming rights vis-a-vis the land. The respondent got issued a notice, dated 29. 03. 1976, Ex. A2, calling upon the appellant to produce the title deeds, get the land measured and to execute the sale deed. In the alternative, he demanded refund of Rs. 4,500/ -. Alleging that no reply was issued to it, he filed the suit. ( 3 ) THE appellant filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that on receiving the entire consideration, the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered, after measurement and that the transaction was preceded by verification of title. He further stated that no third parties have any right vis-a-vis the land and that he has prepared to execute the sale deed. ( 4 ) THROUGH its judgment dated, 30. 07. 1988, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A. S. No. 76 of 1988 in the court of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appeal was allowed on 04. 04. 1994. Hence, the second appeal. ( 5 ) SRI K. Laxmi Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly, the transaction was covered by Ex. A1, the agreement of sale, which evidenced the payment of entire consideration and delivery of possession of land and the only way, through which the respondent could have recovered the consideration, was by seeking cancellation of the agreement. ( 5 ) SRI K. Laxmi Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly, the transaction was covered by Ex. A1, the agreement of sale, which evidenced the payment of entire consideration and delivery of possession of land and the only way, through which the respondent could have recovered the consideration, was by seeking cancellation of the agreement. He contends that the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court on the basis of certain assumptions and surmises and it cannot be sustained in law. He further points out that when there is a recital as to delivery of possession, mere decree for refund of consideration ought not to have been granted. He had urged certain other contentions also. ( 6 ) SRI R. Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though there is a recital in Ex. A1 that possession was delivered, it was almost symbolical and that the appellant did not discharge his obligation of getting the land measured and handing over the title deeds in relation to the said land. He contends that since the receipt of total consideration is not disputed and the appellant did not deny the lapses on his part, the suit in the present form is maintainable. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money, which was paid to the appellant, towards consideration, for purchase of the land, under ex. A1 The execution of Ex. A1 was not disputed by the parties. In fact, both of them have based their claims and rights on that document. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one issue,. namely "whether the respondent herein is entitled for refund of the suit amount". On behalf of the respondent, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and exs. A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. B1, sale deed dated 09. 08. 1958, through which he purchased the land, was filed. The suit was dismissed, holding that the respondent was not able to substantiate his contention that the title of the appellant over the land was defective. A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. B1, sale deed dated 09. 08. 1958, through which he purchased the land, was filed. The suit was dismissed, holding that the respondent was not able to substantiate his contention that the title of the appellant over the land was defective. In the appeal preferred by the respondent, two points were framed, namely, a) whether the respondent is justified in not obtaining the sale deed and b) whether the appellant is liable to refund the entire sale consideration. In a way, it can be said that both the points do not reflect the actual controversy and, at the most, they are some facets of the main issue. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit. ( 7 ) THE salient features of Ex. A1 are that the entire consideration of rs. 4,500/- was paid, the possession of the property agreed to be sold was delivered to the respondent and that the appellant was put under obligation to execute the sale deed, as and when demanded by the respondent. The basis for the respondent, to suspect the title of the appellant was, the receipt of certain notices from the third parties, claiming right over the property covered by Ex. AL Thereupon, he got issued a notice marked as Ex. A2, to the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant did not issue any reply to the said notice. ( 8 ) IN case the respondent noticed any defect in title of the appellant vis-a-vis the suit schedule property, or any lapses on the part of the latter, in the matter of execution of sale deed, two courses were open to him. The first is to require the appellant to rectify the defects, if any, in the transaction and conclude the same, by executing the sale deed. The second was, to seek cancellation of Ex. A1 The recitals in Ex. A2 are mostly in the direction of the first course of action. The concluding portion of Ex. A2 reads as under:"none the less, my client is willing to take a sale deed from you, for the schedule mentioned property, by getting the same measured through the qualified surveyor and on production of necessary documents of title by you. A2 are mostly in the direction of the first course of action. The concluding portion of Ex. A2 reads as under:"none the less, my client is willing to take a sale deed from you, for the schedule mentioned property, by getting the same measured through the qualified surveyor and on production of necessary documents of title by you. "he sought for refund of the amount, only in case the appellant did not comply with the course of action, indicated by him. He did not express the intention to cancel the sale deed. : notwithstanding any response from the appellant, the respondent could have enforced his rights under Ex. A1, by requiring the appellant to execute the sale deed and by getting the property measured. He could also have insisted on handing over the title deeds. The very fact that the appellant volunteered to file Ex. B1, the source of his title, discloses that he never intended to withhold it from the respondent. In this background, the respondent filed the suit with the following prayer: it is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (a) directing the defendant for return sale consideration of rs. 4,500/- and (b) direct the first defendant to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. The prayer does not fit into the one for specific performance of an agreement of sale, or for cancellation of the same. The question of the appellant being under obligation to refund the sale consideration would arise, if only, Ex. A1 was cancelled. As long as it was intact, the respondent did not have the basis or cause of action, to seek refund of the sale consideration. Further, the payment of consideration by the respondent was coupled with several acts that have flown from the appellant, such as delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. In case the respondent wanted to resile from the contract, it was possible, only through the cancellation of Ex. A1. In such an event, the parties would have been restored to their respective positions, that existed before ex. A. 1 was executed. In case the respondent wanted to resile from the contract, it was possible, only through the cancellation of Ex. A1. In such an event, the parties would have been restored to their respective positions, that existed before ex. A. 1 was executed. No party to a contract can be permitted to enrich himself, without correspondingly discharging his part of the obligation under a contract, that too, without seeking cancellation of the same. The lower appellate Court did not take this important aspect into account. Most of its discussion was centered around a non-existent controversy, as to whether the entire amount was to be refunded or any part of it was liable to be forfeited. It did not allow any forfeiture on the sole ground that Ex. A1 did not provide for it. The fact that Ex. A1 is equally silent as to refund of consideration was not taken note of. This Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court suffers from a serious legal infirmity, in that, it directed one of the parties to a transaction to part with the benefits derived under it, while permitting the other party, to retain the corresponding benefits, even while the agreement was intact. ( 9 ) THE second appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. It, is however, made clear that it shall be open to the respondents herein to work out their remedies under Ex. A1 in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.