( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful 2nd defendant in o. S. No. 78/82 on the file of Additional subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in the said suit. The suit was instituted for the relief of specific performance of contract of agreement of sale dated 26. 11. 1981. The learned additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, on the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the Issues and having recorded the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3, D. W. 1 to d. W. 5 and having marked Exs. A-1 to a-11, came to the conclusion that the appellant and the 2nd respondent, both defendants be directed to execute sale deed as per the terms dated 16. 11. 1981 in favour of the plaintiff, and in default the plaintiff be at liberty to get the sale deed registered through process of Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. ( 2 ) SRI M Ravindranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleasdings of the parties and also the evidence available on record and would maintain that the findings recorded by the trial Court that the appellant/2nd defendant is not a cultivating tenant and that he has no statutory preference under Section 15 of the a. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956, are unsustainable findings. The learned counsel also would point out that when acceptable oral evidence is available on record on the aspect of the appellant/2nd defendant being a cultivating tenant, the learned Judge should have relied upon the said evidence and should not have decreed the suit. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Ex. A. 6 sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and would maintain that the said sale deed being in conformity with Section 15 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956, the learned Judge should have recorded a finding that the said sale transaction is a valid one and in the light of the same should have negatived the relief of specific performance. The Counsel also pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and proper to order refund of the earnest money in stead of decreeing the suit granting the principal relief of specific performance. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/ plaintiff had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would maintain that this is a clear case of the breach committed by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was set up only with a view to get over the agreement of sale in question and at any rate the plea of tenancy had been disbelieved appreciating the oral evidence available on record in proper perspective and in view of the same the findings recorded by the trial Court need no disturbance at the hands of this Court. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 5 ) PERUSED the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Additional subordinate Judge, Chittoor. ( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the relief of specific performance granted by the trial court to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the plea of tenancy pleaded by the appellant/2nd defendant to be upheld or to be negatived in the light of the oral evidence available on record ? 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? ( 7 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, these Points be discussed together. The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in the suit instituted O. S. No. 78/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate judge, Chittoor praying for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16. 11. 1981 marked as Ex. A. 1. Before further discussing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it may be appropriate to have a look at the respective pleadings of the parties, the Issues and the additional Issues settled and also the findings recorded by the trial Court in nutshell. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter the parties would be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendants" as shown in o. S. No. 78/82 on the file of Additional subordinate Judge, Chittoor. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter the parties would be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendants" as shown in o. S. No. 78/82 on the file of Additional subordinate Judge, Chittoor. ( 8 ) IN the plaint, as amended, it was pleaded as hereunder : it was pleaded that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the schedule mentioned properties belonging to him to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 46,500/- and in evidence of the same, the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 16. 11. 1981 and he received an advance of Rs. 10,000/- on the same day. It was further pleaded that it was agreed that the plaintiff should take a regular sale deed from the 1st defendant on or before 30. 3. 1982 at his own expense on the payment of the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 36,500/- and the 1st defendant had agreed as per the terms of the agreement to execute the sale deed on receiving the balance of sale consideration on or before 30. 3. 1982. It was also stipulated in the agreement that if the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the agreement, the advance of Rs. 10,000/- paid by him shall be forfeited by the 1st defendant and if the 1st defendant fails to perform his part of the contract by failing to execute a sale deed as agreed upon, he will be liable to pay the loss and damage sustained by the plaintiff besides repaying the advance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- received by him from the plaintiff. It was also further pleaded that the 1st defendant is a resident of Palamner and the lands covered by the agreement are situate in Maredupalle which is about 2 miles from Palamner. The plaintiff made ready the balance of sale consideration payable by him to the 1st defendant and also the necessary amount required for purchase of stamps and for registering the document by 25. 1. 1982. After getting ready with the amount on 26. 1. The plaintiff made ready the balance of sale consideration payable by him to the 1st defendant and also the necessary amount required for purchase of stamps and for registering the document by 25. 1. 1982. After getting ready with the amount on 26. 1. 1982 the plaintiff along with his elder brother Lakshmanappa approached the 1st defendant and informed him that he was ready with the balance of the sale consideration payable to him as also the amount required for purchasing the stamp papers and for registration expenses and requested him to receive the balance of the amount of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement. The 1st defendant informed the plaintiff and his elder brother that he would do so in a few days. The plaintiff and his elder brother became suspicious about the conduct of the 1st defendant in seeking the time for executing a sale deed on 31. 1. 1982 the plaintiff together with his elder brother Lakshmanappa approached the 1st defendant and requested him to receive the balance of the sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. Then the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant had offered to purchase the schedule mentioned properties for rs. 65,000/- and that if the plaintiff was prepared to pay that amount, he would execute the sale deed in plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff and his elder brother were shocked to hear the suggestion of the 1st defendant. It was also further pleaded that the 1st defendant is an educated man and he was intending to sell the schedule mentioned properties since about two years. Some others also offered to purchase the lands but the highest offer was that of the plaintiff and hence it was accepted by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff reminded the 1st defendant about the above facts and requested him not to resile from the agreement. It was also further pleaded that there had been feelings of bitter enmity between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant unsuccessfully competed in the year 1976 with the plaintiff and his elder brother Lakshmanappa in the purchase of landed properties of M. G. Chandra and Sriramulu, sons of Bodenna, who are now residing at Kolar Gold Fields. It was also further pleaded that there had been feelings of bitter enmity between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant unsuccessfully competed in the year 1976 with the plaintiff and his elder brother Lakshmanappa in the purchase of landed properties of M. G. Chandra and Sriramulu, sons of Bodenna, who are now residing at Kolar Gold Fields. The 2nd defendant was the Sarpanch of the Gangavaram Panchayat for two terms till May 1981 and he was defeated when he contested again for the post of Sarpanch in June 1981. The plaintiff and his relations did not work for him even though the 2nd defendant requested them repeatedly. The 2nd defendant had been entertaining a suspicion that the plaintiff worked against him and that he was responsible for his (2nd defendant's) defeat. It was also further pleaded that the plaintiff informed the 1st defendant that it was not fair on his part to back on the agreement executed by him in favour of the plaintiff as the offer of the plaintiff was the highest and that the same was a very reasonable price. The plaintiff also told the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant who is inimically disposed towards the plaintiff is intentionally interfering in the matter and tempting the 1st defendant with a higher price with the aim of putting the plaintiff to loss and trouble. If really the 2nd defendant had the idea of purchasing the properties he would have offered a reasonable price during the two years period during which the properties were in the market for sale. The plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to reconsider the matter and perform his part of the contract. On 7. 2. 1982, the plaintiff again approached the 1st defendant along with his elder brother lakshmannappa and once again requested him to execute the sale deed and abide by the terms of the sale agreement executed by him on 16. 11. 1981. But the 1st defendant bluntly told the plaintiff at the sale price offered by the plaintiff he will not execute sale deed and that he was prepared to return the advance of Rs. 10,000/- paid by the plaintiff together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/-as damages. 11. 1981. But the 1st defendant bluntly told the plaintiff at the sale price offered by the plaintiff he will not execute sale deed and that he was prepared to return the advance of Rs. 10,000/- paid by the plaintiff together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/-as damages. The persuasion of the plaintiff's elder brother Lakshmannappa did not yield any result and the plaintiff and his elder brother Lakshmannappa had to return back disappointed after informing the 1st defendant that they were not willing to receive the advance and damages offered by him. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had been ready with the balance of the sale consideration and the amounts required for purchasing the stamps and for registration expenses and willing to perform his part of the contract ever since 25. 1. 1982 and the 1st defendant was also duly informed about the same. As the 1st defendant bluntly refused on 7. 2. 1982 to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff was getting ready to initiate legal action. The 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant had been in continuous contact. On 9. 2. 1982 the plaintiff got a notice dated 8. 2. 1982 from the Counsel of the 2nd defendant stating that the 2nd defendant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule mentioned lands since the year 1972 and as such the lands have to be offered for sale to him first by the 1st defendant and the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant dated 16. 11. 1981 is voidable as the lands were not offered by the 1st defendant to him in the first instance. It was also further pleaded that the 2nd defendant had never been a tenant of any of the lands mentioned in the schedule at any time whatsoever. The 1st defendant had been cultivating the lands by himself on hire basis and finding that it is impossible for the 1st defendant to wriggle out of the agreement and motivated by a esire to derive unlawful benefit by the offer of higher price by the 2nd defendant the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant had colluded together and the 2nd defendant came forward with the false claim that he is a cultivating tenant. The 2nd defendant is a rich landlord of the village Marredupalle wherein the schedule mentioned lands are situate. The 2nd defendant is a rich landlord of the village Marredupalle wherein the schedule mentioned lands are situate. The plaintiff has about Acs. 35. 00 of land both wet and dry. The plaintiff is a powerful man having a lot of support. In order to coerce the plaintiff into submissions, the: 1st defendant had set up the 2nd defendant. On 20. 2. 1982 the 1st defendant through his Counsel gave a collusive notice to the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant was a cultivating tenant under him in respect of the plaint schedule lands and that he came to know that he had to offer the lands first to him and that on that account the agreement of sale executed by him on 16. 11. 1991 in favour of the plaintiff is void. The plaintiff was also asked to receive the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- paid by him. The plaintiff tried to persuade the 1st defendant that the course adopted by him was unjust and immoral besides being vexatious and requested him to abide by the agreement of sale executed by him in plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff waited for some time with the fond hope that wisdom may prevail over the 1st defendant and guide him properly in course of time and that ultimately he may decide to perform his part of the contract. But as there was no change in the attitude of the 1 st defendant the plaintiff got issued a reply notice to defendants 1 and 2 through his Counsel on 31. 3. 1982 and in the said circumstances the plaintiff was obliged to file the present suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant in his favour on 16. 11. 1982 in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule or in the alternative for directing the 1 st defendant to pay back to plaintiff the sum of Rs. 10,000/-received by him as advance on 16. 11. 1981 and also to pay the plaintiff damages for breach of contract, which the plaintiff estimates at Rs. 10,000/ -. The 2nd defendant was also impleaded as a party to the suit as he had lawfully and collusively issued a notice to the plaintiff stating that the agreement executed by the 1st defendant in plaintiff's favour is voidable. 11. 1981 and also to pay the plaintiff damages for breach of contract, which the plaintiff estimates at Rs. 10,000/ -. The 2nd defendant was also impleaded as a party to the suit as he had lawfully and collusively issued a notice to the plaintiff stating that the agreement executed by the 1st defendant in plaintiff's favour is voidable. It was also further pleaded that the 1st defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties on 29. 4. 1982 after coming to know about the institution of the suit. The 2nd defendant had full knowledge about the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is not a tenant of the 1st defendant and the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void. The 2nd defendant also is bound to join the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) THE 1st defendant filed written statement with the following averments : it was admitted that the allegations in paras 3 and 4 of the plaint are partly true and it was also further admitted that the 1st defendant had executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 31. 3. 1982 agreeing to sell the land to the plaintiff for rs. 46,500/- and received Rs. 10,000/- as advance on the same day and that the time stipulated was 30. 3. 1982 for completion of the contract. It was also further pleaded that the 2nd defendant had been in possession of the land as a cultivating tenant from 1972. The 2nd defendant caused a lawyer's notice dated 8. 2. 1992 to be issued claiming that he was entitled to the benefits of A. P. Tenancy Act as amended as per which in the event of the landlord desiring to alienate the land, the land would first be offered to the cultivating tenant and consequently the 2nd defendant had the first choice and that he was willing to purchase the land. On receipt of the said notice the 1st defendant obtained legal opinion and was advised that the legal position as propounded by the 2nd defendant was correct and that the land could not be sold to any other person. Accordingly the 1st defendant sent a notice dated 20. 2. On receipt of the said notice the 1st defendant obtained legal opinion and was advised that the legal position as propounded by the 2nd defendant was correct and that the land could not be sold to any other person. Accordingly the 1st defendant sent a notice dated 20. 2. 1982 to the plaintiff informing him that in the circumstances he was unable to complete his part of the contract and offering to return Rs. 10,0007 -. The allegations in Para 5 had been denied as false and the same had [been invented. The allegations in Paras 6 and 7 of the plaint also had been denied as false and invented and it was pleaded that if really the allegations in Paras 5 to 7 had been true, the natural conduct of the f laintiff would have been to issue a notice. The very length of each of the paragraphs is indicative of the strained effort at the invention of a false case to make the plaintiff's case appear true. Suffice it to say that at no time prior to or after the exchange of notices the plaintiff along or with his brother or any one else met the 1st defendant. The invention of the long narration would show that though the 2nd defendant had issued notice as early as 8. 2. 1982 and the 1st defendant on 20. 2. 1982 the plaintiff issued a reply dated 31. 3. 1982 and the plaintiff was satisfied that the legal position set down in the notice was correct. Otherwise there was no need for the plaintiff to have taken as long a time as he did in giving a reply. The plaintiff had obviously set down a false story of sequence of events in order to explain away the delay. The allegations in para-9 of the plaint also had been denied as false and it was pleaded that the 2nd defendant was a tenant from 1972 and continues to be a tenant. As the 1st defendant is a Government servant he found by practical experience that he could not carry on personal cultivation and so leased the land to the 2nd defendant who is the owner of the adjoining land. As the 1st defendant is a Government servant he found by practical experience that he could not carry on personal cultivation and so leased the land to the 2nd defendant who is the owner of the adjoining land. It was specifically pleaded that the 1st defendant was not aware of the legal position when he executed the suit agreement and to the knowledge of the plaintiff the 2nd defendant had been cultivating the land as a cultivating tenant. As soon as the legal position was understood by the 1st defendant, he had no other alternative except to inform the plaintiff accordingly and the 1st defendant did not wish to get entangled in a litigation knowing that sale to the plaintiff would be invalid. The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief as also discretionary. The Court cannot direct specific performance when such a direction would be opposed to statute. ( 10 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement with the following averments : it was pleaded that the 1st defendant is an employee in Panchayat Samithi. The 1st defendant purchased lands in or about 1972 and he cultivated the lands personally for one year but having found that he could not attend to his office duties and at the same time carry on personal cultivation, the 1st defendant leased out the lands to the 2nd defendant in 1972 and the 2nd defendant had been personally cultivating the lands as a tenant from 1972. As a matter of fact, the lands of the 1st defendant are contiguous with the 2nd defendant's own lands. It was further pleaded that the terms of the lease were that the annual rent was Rs. 2,400/-, Rs. 1,000/- being payable in January and the balance in July of each year. The 2nd defendant had been making the payment regularly and continued to be in possession. It was also further pleaded that; the Andhra Area Tenancy Act was amended by Act 39 of 1974 and the amendment came into force with effect from 1. 7. 1980. The major amendment was in the event of the owner desiring to sell the lands, he should first offer the land to the cultivating tenant. Even if the landlord effects any alienation in violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the A. P. Tenancy act the alienation as against the cultivating tenant is void. 7. 1980. The major amendment was in the event of the owner desiring to sell the lands, he should first offer the land to the cultivating tenant. Even if the landlord effects any alienation in violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the A. P. Tenancy act the alienation as against the cultivating tenant is void. It was also further pleaded that the 2nd defendant heard that the 1st defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule lands to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant in mediations caused a registered notice dated 8. 2. 1982 issued to be plaintiff and the 1 st defendant drawing their attention to the provisions of the A. P. Tenancy Act and conveying to the 1st defendant that the 2nd defendant has a statutory option to purchase the lands and also that the agreement even if followed by a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff would be woid and not binding on the 2nd defendant. The said notices were received by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant issued a notice dated 20. 2. 1982 informing the plaintiff that the agreement dated 16. 11. 1981 was void. The plaintiff also sent a reply dated 31. 3. 1982 through his Advocate to the Advocate of the 1st defendant marking a copy to the 2nd defendant's Advocate. It was also further pleaded that the 1st defendant is an educated person and was obviously aware of the provisions of the amended Tenancy Act. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant had initially colluded together and brought the agreement dated 16. 11. 1981 into existence. The advantage of the 1 st defendant would have been that he would be getting a huge amount as sale consideration compared to what he would be entitled to if he had not complied with the provisions of the Tenancy act. But, as soon as the 2nd defendant issued notice dated 8. 2. 1982, the 1st defendant became aware of the fact that he could not ultimately by-pass the Act and in view of the above it was pleaded that 2nd defendant need not contradict the contentions in the plaint para by para. The allegations in Paras 3 and 4 had been admitted to the extent mentioned in the notice dated 8. 2. 1982. The allegations in Paras 3 and 4 had been admitted to the extent mentioned in the notice dated 8. 2. 1982. It was further pleaded that it is significant to note that the 1st defendant sent a notice dated 20. 2. 1982, but it was only on 31. 3. 1982 the plaintiff chose to reply to the 1 st defendant. The delay in reply by the plaintiff also is significant i. e. , 31. 3. 1982, the day after the date fixed for completion of the contract and the 2nd defendant understands that during the interval, the plaintiff tried to gain over the 1st defendant, but failed. The allegations in Para 5 had been denied as false and it was pleaded that if really the plaintiff was ready as early as on 25. 1. 1982 with the money and Non-Judicial Stamps and approached the 1st defendant on 26. 1. 1982 and on 31. 1. 1982 and if the 1st defendant had informed the plaintiff and his brother that the 2nd defendant had offered Rs. 65,000/-, the natural conduct of the plaintiff would have to issue a notice to the 1st defendant. The dates chosen also were invented to appear genuine. The allegations in Para 9 also had been denied including allegation that the 2nd defendant was not a tenant of the 1st defendant. It was further specifically pleaded that in the face of the provisions of the A. P. Tenancy act, the agreement entered by 1 st defendant in favour of the plaintiff is void and unenforceable in law. The discretion to pass a decree for specific performance is traceable to equity and the Court would not award a decree which violates statutory provisions. ( 11 ) ON the strength of these pleadings, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, chittoor, had settled the following Issues and the additional Issues as well which are as hereunder : Issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for the specific performance of the agreement of sale ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- paid as advance ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages as claimed in the suit? 4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to ? Additional Issues : 1. Whether the 2nd defendant is not the tenant of 1st defendant and sale deed dated 29. 4. 10,000/- paid as advance ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages as claimed in the suit? 4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to ? Additional Issues : 1. Whether the 2nd defendant is not the tenant of 1st defendant and sale deed dated 29. 4. 1982 is null and void ? 2. Whether the plaintiff has to pay additional Court fee in view of the plaint amendment ? The learned Judge recorded the evidence of p. W. 1 to P. W. 3, D. W. 1 to D. W. 5 and further marked Exs. A-1 to A-11 and while answering additional Issue No. 1 appreciated [the evidence available on record, came to (the conclusion that neither the 1st defendant nor the 2nd defendant filed any documentary evidence to show that the 2nd defendant paid any rent to the lands or to prove the factum of tenancy and since there is no acceptable evidence it was held that the 2nd defendant is not a cultivating tenant as on the date of agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and in the light of the same the plea of pre-emptive night putforth by the 2nd defendant had been negatived. Further, finding had been recorded relating to the sale transaction ex. A-6 which was registered after filing of the suit and positive finding had been recorded that in the light of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant is not valid. While answering Issue No. l, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and hence the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale in question. While answering Issue Nos. 2 and 3, it was observed that in view of the fact that the. relief of specific performance to be granted in favour of the plaintiff, there is no need to give specific finding on these issues relating to the refund of consideration. Certain findings had been recorded in relation to the payment of Court fee as well and further finding had been recorded that a false plea of tenancy had been putforth and ultimately the suit was decreed granting the relief of specific performance. Certain findings had been recorded in relation to the payment of Court fee as well and further finding had been recorded that a false plea of tenancy had been putforth and ultimately the suit was decreed granting the relief of specific performance. ( 12 ) SECTION 15 of A. P. (Andhra Area)Tenancy Act 1956, as substituted by the amending Act No. 39 of 1974, reads as hereunder : cultivating tenant's right to first purchase the land leased to him: (1) Any landlord intending to sell the land leased to a cultivating tenant shall first give notice to such cultivating tenant, of his intention to sell such land, and requiring him to exercise his option to purchase the land. The particulars to be specified in the notice and the time within which the option shall be exercised by cultivating tenant shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) If the cultivating tenant exercises his option to purchase the land there is an agreement between the landlord and his cultivating tenant in regard to the price payable, the landlord shall sell the land to such cultivating tenant in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where the cultivating tenant exercises his option to purchase the land; but there is no agreement in regard to the price payable, the landlord or the cultivating tenant may apply to the Special Officer for the determination of reasonable price of such land; and the Special Officer shall, after giving notice to the landlord, and the cultivating tenant and after making such enquiry as he thinks fit, determine the reasonable price: provided that the reasonable price so determined shall not exceed five times the fair rent, if any fixed after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974 and in force in respect of that land; or where no such fair rent has been fixed or is in force, five times the fair rent that would have keen so fixed, has an application been made for determination of such rent on the (late of giving notice under sub-section (1 ). (4) The reasonable price determined under sub-section (3) shall be payable in ten equal annual instalments in such manner as may be prescribed; and the sale shall be (teemed to have become effective on the payment of the first instalment and land shall be deemed to be the security for the payment of the balance of the instalments. (5) If the cultivating tenant fails to exercise his option to purchase the land or fails to pay the first instalment of the reasonable price, the landlord shall be entitled to sell the land to any other person: provided that where the land is not sold to any other person within a period of two years from the date of notice given under sub-section (1), the landlord shall not sell the land thereafter without giving a fresh (option under this section to the cultivating tenant to purchase the land. (6) Any sale of the land by the landlord in contravention of this section shall be voidable at the option of the cultivating tenant. ( 13 ) P. W. 1, the plaintiff deposed that the 1st defendant is a resident of Palamner and the 2nd defendant is a resident of his village and his village is two miles away from Palamner and he lives by cultivation. The 1st defendant is working as Village development Officer since about 10 years and the 1st defendant has got lands in his village and the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 16. 11. 1981 for Rs. 67,500/- with respect to an extent of Acs. 2-26 cents in his village. Within the said Acs. 2-26 cents, Ac. 0-90 cents is wet land and Acs. 1-36 cents is dry land. There is a well in that land and there is an electric motor of 5 H. P. also. The agreement of sale dated 16. 11. 1981 is Ex. A-1. He paid an advance of Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st defendant on the date of Ex. A-1 itself. Ex. A-1 was executed at Sub-Registrar's office, Palamner. One Gangaiah of palamner, was the scribe of Ex. A-1 and a document writer. Munirajulu, Ahmmed, basha and Kuppaiah belonging to palamner attested Ex. A-1. As per the terms of Ex. A-1, P. W. 1 has to pay a balance of rs. 36,500/- to the 1st defendant within four months from the date of Ex. One Gangaiah of palamner, was the scribe of Ex. A-1 and a document writer. Munirajulu, Ahmmed, basha and Kuppaiah belonging to palamner attested Ex. A-1. As per the terms of Ex. A-1, P. W. 1 has to pay a balance of rs. 36,500/- to the 1st defendant within four months from the date of Ex. A-1 i. e. , within 31. 3. 1982 and obtain sale deed from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant* signed in ex. A-1 after reading the contents of it. At the time of Ex. A-1, there was sugarcane crop in an extent of Ac. 1. 00 of land covered under Ex. A-1. On the date of Ex. A-1 P. W. I had a balance of Rs. 36,500/- together with the necessary expenses for obtaining a regular registered sale deed, but as there was sugar cane crop raised by the 1st defendant he did not obtain a regular sale deed on that day as the 1st defendant has to harness his sugar cane crop and then only hand over possession of land to him. P. W. 1 also deposed about the 1st defendant crushing his sugarcane and thereafter P. W. 1 and his elder brother approaching the 1st defendant on 25. 1. 1982 and asking him to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount and then the 1st defendant saying that he would do so within 5 or 6 days thereafter. P. W. 1 further deposed that after waiting for 5 or 6 days, again they approached the 1 st defendant and asked to execute the sale deed but the 1st defendant told him that the 2nd defendant offered to purchase the said land for rs. 65,000/- and that he would therefore be prepared to execute the sale deed in his favour if he were to pay him the said amount. P. W. 1 also deposed that he did not agree for such purchase. This witness also deposed that the 2nd defendant was the Sarpanch of the village prior to Ex. A-1 also and he: is the Sarpanch of the village even now. But however, he was not the Sarpanch of the village at the time of ex. A-1 and there are about 100 houses in the village. The 2nd defendant knew about ths agreement to purchase the land of the 1st defendant under Ex. A-1. This witness also deposed about the notice Ex. But however, he was not the Sarpanch of the village at the time of ex. A-1 and there are about 100 houses in the village. The 2nd defendant knew about ths agreement to purchase the land of the 1st defendant under Ex. A-1. This witness also deposed about the notice Ex. A-2 and the notice issued by the 1st defendant, Ex. A-3, and the reply notice issued in relation thereto, ex. A-4. This witness also had taken a specific stand that the 2nd defendant never cultivated the land of the 1st defendant on vanam basis. The 1st defendant alone was cultivating the same through hired labour. The 2nd defendant has got Acs. 15-00 of wet land and Acs. 20-00 of dry land. The 2nd defendant used to give land on varam basis to others. P. W. 1 also deposed that he is having land at a distance of about 250 feet from the suit land. P. W. 1 also deposed that he obtained copies of Adangal showing that the 1st defendant cultivates the suit land personally. The certified copy of tie Adangal for the Faslies 1385 to 1390 was marked as Ex. A-5. P. W. 1 also deposed that after the suit was filed the 1st defendant sold the suit land to the 2nd defendant. The registration copy of the sale deed dated 29. 4,1982 was marked as Ex. A-6. P. W. 1 also deposed that the defendants had the knowledge at the time of execution of the original of Ex. A-6 that the suit was already instituted by him. The office copy of the notice dated 30. 9. 1976 issued by him to chandraiah and Sriramulu was marked as Ex. A-7. The postal acknowledgement signed by Sriramulu is marked as Ex. A-9. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 12. 8. 1977 executed by Chandraiah, sriramulu in favour of the 2nd defendant was marked as Ex. A-10. P. W. 1 was cross-examined at length both by the 1st defendant and also the 2nd defendant. Several suggestions put to this witness had been specifically denied. The specific plea of tenancy and several questions put to this witness in relation thereto had been answered by P. W. 1 and the same had been denied. A-10. P. W. 1 was cross-examined at length both by the 1st defendant and also the 2nd defendant. Several suggestions put to this witness had been specifically denied. The specific plea of tenancy and several questions put to this witness in relation thereto had been answered by P. W. 1 and the same had been denied. ( 14 ) P. W. 2, the elder brother of P. W. 1 had deposed all the further details of his family in elaboration, totally supporting the version of P. W. 1 and giving certain further details also. P. W. 3 deposed about the disputed property and deposed that the said land belongs to the 1st defendant and the 1 st defendant purchased the said land about 20 years back from one Sabdhar Sahed. The 1 st defendant is a resident of Palamner. After the purchase of land the 1st defendant erected a hut besides the well situate in the land and cultivated the same for about three years. He was residing in the said house to look after the cultivation in the season. After the said three years of cultivation, the 1st defendant settled permanently at Palamner and used to look after the cultivation by coming from palamner on the moped and he was raising crops. P. W. 3 also deposed that he knows the 2nd defendant and he is a big ryot in the village and he got about Acs. 15-00 of wet land and Acs. 20-00 of dry land and he owns a tractor and he also owns a house at palamner and this witness gave certain other further details. Certain suggestions put to this witness in relation to the enmity and other aspects had been specifically denied. This is the oral evidence of P. W. I, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 which is available on record apart from the documentary evidence exs. A-1 to A-10 which was well deposed by P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 as well. ( 15 ) THE 1st defendant examined himself as D. W. 1 and this witness admitted the execution of Ex. A-1 and also deposed that he had decided to sell the lands 4 or 5 years prior to Ex. A-1 and he raised one crap with much difficulty after his purchase. Subsequent thereto he had leased out the lands under Ex. A-1 and also deposed that he had decided to sell the lands 4 or 5 years prior to Ex. A-1 and he raised one crap with much difficulty after his purchase. Subsequent thereto he had leased out the lands under Ex. A-2 to the 2nd defendant and the lands are in his possession and enjoyment even till today. D. W. 1 also deposed that all the villagers know about the possession of the lands with the 2nd defendant and he did not inform any other villager except D. W. 1 regarding the sale of land. D. W. 1 also deposed about the other documents available on record and in the elaborate cross-examination this witness asserted that the 2nd defendant has been a cultivating tenant. ( 16 ) THE 2nd defendant was examined as D. W. 2 who had deposed about his plea of tenancy. This witness in cross-examination deposed that he does not if accounts like Nos. 2 and 10 (1) are being maintained in respect of these lands and be does not know whether his name is entered in any of the records maintained as a. tenant in respect of the suit land and he had not borrowed any amount from the government towards the purchase of manures for the plaint schedule lands. D. W. 2 further deposed that he does not know whether his elder brother munaswamy Chetty had borrowed any amount for the purchase of manures. The statements of Sarpanch of the villages are not taken at the time of giving manure loans. D. W. 2 also deposed that he might ave applied for a manure loan but he does not remember. He knows about the printed form of the loan application shown to him. This witness also further deposed that they all applied for the manure loans by filling up the forms and Ex. A-11 is the printed form. This witness, no doubt, deposed in detail in respect of his plea of tenancy and also the purchase of the property. It is needless to say that the purchase of the property is after the institution of the suit. ( 17 ) THE evidence of D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 5 had been strongly relied upon by the Counsel representing the appellant. It is needless to say that the purchase of the property is after the institution of the suit. ( 17 ) THE evidence of D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 5 had been strongly relied upon by the Counsel representing the appellant. D. W. 3 deposed that D. W. 1 might have cultivated and raised crops in the suit lands for about 10 years. It was also deposed that there is no enmity in between D. W. 2 and P. W. 1 to his knowledge and D. W. 2 is cultivating the suit land as he purchased the suit land as a purchaser. D. W. 2 has got his own lands by the side of the suit lands. D. W. 4 deposed that the 1st defendant is the original owner of the suit land and he purchased it from one Sabjar Saheb. The 2nd defendant is in possession of the suit land as a cultivating tenant. D. W. 4 also deposed that the 1st defendant cultivated the suit land for about 2 years personally and then he gave it on lease to D. W. 2. D. W. 2 took the land on lease and cultivated the same for 7 or 8 years. D. W. 4 deposed certain other particulars and he was cross-examined at length. D. W. 4 also deposed that he worked as Village Development officer for about 15 years at Palamner. ( 18 ) D. W. 5 is yet another witness who had deposed that D. W. 2 has been cultivating the suit lands and these lands have been in possession of D. W. 2 since 18 years and this witness deposed in relation to the other facts in the context of the alleged tenancy and he was cross-examined. ( 19 ) IT is no doubt true that the evidence of D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 5 is available on record on the aspect of plea of tenancy putforth specifically by defendants 1 and 2 as well. There is evidence available on record that both P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 belong to the same village. On a careful analysis of the oral evidence of D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 5, the period of tenancy and also for how many years D. W. 2 had been exercising the rights of tenancy, there are discrepancies. On a careful analysis of the oral evidence of D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 5, the period of tenancy and also for how many years D. W. 2 had been exercising the rights of tenancy, there are discrepancies. The trial Court had taken pains to go through the whole oral evidence of D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 5 available on record and came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances Ex. A-6 was thought of only with a view to defeat Ex. A. 1 and the plea of tenancy also was thought of only with a view to get over Ex. A. I. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that may be due to higher offer the 1st defendant might have changed his mind and with a view to defeat the agreement of sale Ex. A. 1, he might have thought of disposing of the property in favour of the 2nd defendant and as a result thereof Ex. A. 6 came into existence after the institution of the suit. This is the only conclusion at which this Court may arrive at in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. No other view appears to be possible. Further, the question of exercising the pre-emptive right would come into play only when the plea of tenancy is established. Here is a case where except the oral evidence of D. W. 1 to D. W. 5, there is no other evidence available on record on the plea of tenancy. D. W. 1 is interested in safeguarding his own interest by getting some higher sale consideration and D. W. 2 is also interested in owning property by defeating Ex. A. 1 and hence in the absence of any other acceptable proof relating to the plea of tenancy, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal is bound to fail and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. It is pertinent to note that the 1st defendant had not chosen to prefer any appeal and inasmuch as the 2nd defendant having purchased the property after the institution of the suit has been further prosecuting the litigation, the appeal is dismissed, with costs.