( 1 ) THIS Court on 17-7-1998, made the following order: "admit the Appeal in view of the substantial questions of law raised in ground No. 14". In C. M. P. No. 11942/98, this Court made an order of status quo obtaining as on the said day with regard to possession until further orders. ( 2 ) THE substantial questions of law specified in Ground No. 14 are as hereunder : i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in deciding Issue No. 1, which involved execution of the sale agreement Ex. A. 1, against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff failed to examine the attestors as witnesses, in spite of holding that Ex. A. 1 is proved ? ii) Whether it is open to the defendants/vendors under the agreement of sale ex. A. 1, to raise the plea of want of title in them to the property covered by the agreement, to defeat the plaintiff/vendor's suit for specific performance ? iii) Whether a decree for specific performance of contract to sell can be refused to a vendee willing to take such title as the vendors have ? iv) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in presuming possession of a third party in the suit in which the parties have pleaded possession of persons other than the third party? v) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in presuming possession of D. W. 6 and of the vendor of D. W. 2 under Ex. X-6, in the presence of material showing possession of defendant No. 1 in revenue accounts, in the circumstances of the case ? vi) Whether the persons whom the vendors under an agreement of sale claim to have title to the property covered by the agreement but are not parties to the agreement of sale, are necessary parties to the suit brought by the vendee for specific performance; and if so, whether the question of not impleading them as parties can be raised and considered in the first appeal in a case in which the vendors/defendants have not raised any plea in their written statement and no issue was framed in that regard ? vii) Whether the first Appellate Court is entitled to substitute its own views and conclusions in place of the ones taken and recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, without discussing and considering all that material, without meeting the reasoning and appreciation of the trial Court and without showing how the trial Court is wrong while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court ? viii) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the trial Court's decree in its entirety, including the portion of the decree for permanent injunction when the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property in pursuance of agreement of sale executed by the defendants and when the defendants disclaim any title or right to possess the suit property ? ix) Whether a decree for specific performance can be refused to vendee against the vendor shown to have possessory title or undivided interest to the property covered by the agreement? x) Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court rendered without formulating the Points for determination and the decree following it, can be sustained in the circumstances of the case ? ( 3 ) HEARD the Counsel on record. ( 4 ) THOUGH several substantial questions of Law had been pointed out, the principal question which had been argued in elaboration is in relation to the question 'whether the appellate Court is justified in reversing the well considered Judgment and Decree of the trial Court on the ground of plea of want of title raised by the respondents/defendants. The Counsel on record made elaborate submissions and also placed reliance on certain decisions. ( 5 ) THE appellant in the present Second Appeal is the plaintiff in o. S. No. 98/85 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruvuru. The said suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22-1-1981 executed by the respondents in this Second Appeal, the defendants in the suit, in respect of two Items of the plaint schedule and apart from the relief of specific performance, the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the appellant's/plaintiff's possession and enjoyment also had been prayed for. The Court of first instance decreed the suit on 4-10-1988. The Court of first instance decreed the suit on 4-10-1988. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred a. S. No. 26/88 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and the appellate Court reversed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by judgment dated 31-3-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal had been preferred. ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendants" as shown in O. S. No. 98/85 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruvuru for the purpose of convenience. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the direction of the Court of first instance to deposit Rs. 90/-, the remaining sale consideration, also had been complied with. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder: it was pleaded that the plaintiff acquired an extent of Acs. 1-23 cents of wet land from the defendants for a consideration of Rs. 10,400/- under an agreement of sale dated 22-1-1981. The plaint schedule property is situate in Korlamanda. The plaint schedule land was sold at the rate of Rs. 8500/- per acre. An extent of Ac. 0-48 cents comprised in R. S. No. 231/2 in holding No. 452 was purchased by the 1st defendant from one Baje Saheb son of Mabu Saheb of Korlamanda some 17 years prior to the date of agreement of sale. An extent of Ac. 0-75 cents comprised in R. S. No. 229/1 of Korlamanda is ancestral property of the defendants and the 1st defendant got it to his share in partition with his brothers. It was also further pleaded that on the date of agreement of sale, an amount of rs. 5100/- was paid by the plaintiff to the vendors. e. , the defendants and the balance was agreed to be paid before 20th March of the same year. It was also stipulated that the property would be delivered to the plaintiff on payment of entire consideration. The defendants further agreed to supply the water of 'tummala Tank'. Regarding payment of taxes and other things, the agreement recites the usual terms. The defendants assured the plaintiff that they have got absolute title and possession in the schedule property and they had the saleable interest in the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is free from encumbrances. Regarding payment of taxes and other things, the agreement recites the usual terms. The defendants assured the plaintiff that they have got absolute title and possession in the schedule property and they had the saleable interest in the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is free from encumbrances. The defendants also undertook to execute a proper and regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when demanded after receiving the entire consideration. As agreed upon and within the stipulated time, the plaintiff paid Rs. 5300/- on 19-3-1981 towards the balance of sale consideration to the defendants and the plaintiff was put in possession of the schedule property. It was also further pleaded that the factum of payment of balance of consideration and delivery of schedule property to the plaintiff was duly endorsed on the agreement of sale and the endorsement was duly acknowledged and attested by the defendants and ever since the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any interruption whatsoever. Every year the plaintiff is cultivating the schedule land and raising wet paddy crops. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff alone is paying the land revenue due on the schedule land to the Government. During the suit year season the plaintiff got transplanted the suit schedule land with white mass or paddy seedlings. The Mutha Badira Lakshminarashulu of lakshmipuram, H/o. Kalagara was employed for the purpose of transplantation. The transplantation was over some time in the month of July and the process of weeding is also completed. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of obligations under the agreement of sale. On calculation it is seen that a paltry sum of Rs. 55/- only is to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants towards the consideration for the extent of Acs. 1-23 cents comprised in two Items. It was also further pleaded that there was no understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants to get the schedule land measured and to arrive the total amount. By the date of balance of payment on 19-8-1981, the defendants accepted the sum of Rs. 5300/- as a round figure towards the balance of consideration. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 90/- towards the outstanding balance of Rs. 55/- and interest thereon at 121/2 % per annum as per calculation. By the date of balance of payment on 19-8-1981, the defendants accepted the sum of Rs. 5300/- as a round figure towards the balance of consideration. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 90/- towards the outstanding balance of Rs. 55/- and interest thereon at 121/2 % per annum as per calculation. While matters stood thus, the plaintiff came to know today that the defendants are putting the schedule property to sale to others and are trying to create some false and fraudulent documents in respect of the suit schedule property and are of evil intentions to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property by use of force and cause breach of public peace and public tranquility and hence the suit. ( 7 ) THE 1st defendant filed written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant and it was pleaded in the said written statement that the plaintiff who is the cousin of the defendants made the defendants to put a thumb mark on some papers which the plaintiff now says to be an agreement of sale. It was also pleaded that the defendants are illiterates and the 1st defendant is only a marks woman while the 2nd defendant knows only how to sign and not beyond. It was also pleaded that they never agreed to sell the suit lands as they do not have any rights over the schedule lands. The suit schedule lands were never sold for a consideration of Rs. 10,400/ -. It was further pleaded that item No. 1 of the plaint schedule land belongs to the wife of the 1st defendant and the same is purchased by her on 24-1-1963 from one Shaik Mabu Saheb through an agreement of sale and her father purchased it for her towards pasupu kumkuma. Since then the 1st defendant alone had been in possession and enjoyment of the land and as such the defendants could not have sold that piece of land. As regards Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule lands, the same does not belong to the defendants. It is the patta land of Mankena Narayana, the elder brother of the 1st defendant and he alone had been in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right. As regards Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule lands, the same does not belong to the defendants. It is the patta land of Mankena Narayana, the elder brother of the 1st defendant and he alone had been in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right. Further, it was pleaded that it is not true that Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of the 1st defendant and the same is ancestral property. The defendants are never in possession of Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule during the last two decades. The sale agreement set up by the plaintiff is apparently executed by both the defendants while the recitals therein only show that the properties mentioned in the agreement belong to the 1st defendant only and therefore it is not known why the 2nd defendant should join in execution when he has no right at all. The sale agreement is the result of a conspiracy played by the plaintiff, Katta veera Raghavarao and the Ex. village karanam. It was also further pleaded that it is not known whether the village karanam has understood the implications of the document she wrote. As per the revenue records even Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit lands stand in the name of Mabu Saheb and Mankena Narayana respectively and it is also not known how Shaik Baji Saheb could have sold the land when the land belongs to Shaik Mabu Saheb. Shaik Mabu Saheb does not have a son by name Baji saheb and there is no such person as Shaik Baji Saheb, s/o. Mabu Saheb in the village. The entire sale agreement set up by the plaintiff is bristling with absurdities and inaccuracies. As the defendants have no title to the land they cannot convey title in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement was brought into existence with ulterior motives. It was also pleaded that the 1st defendant being an illiterate, he cannot even say whether he has put the thumb mark on the so-called sale agreement. The recitals in the so-called sale agreement are self contradictory. The lands were never measured and were never delivered to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the 1st defendant being an illiterate, he cannot even say whether he has put the thumb mark on the so-called sale agreement. The recitals in the so-called sale agreement are self contradictory. The lands were never measured and were never delivered to the plaintiff. It was also further pleaded that it is also not understood as to why the plaintiff kept quiet all the four years without getting the sale deed executed when almost all the consideration was paid. It is also significant that no notice was issued demanding specific performance before filing the suit and it only shows the fishy nature of the sale agreement. The cist receipts filed into Court do not relate to the suit lands and they do not establish the payment of land revenue for the suit land. Further, it was pleaded that the suit is barred by time inasmuch as the suit was filed by the plaintiff three years after the sale agreement and there is no pleading in the plaint as to how the suit is in time and as to when he demanded specific performance and when performance was refused. It was also further pleaded that it is not at all correct to say that the plaintiff paid the sale consideration as stated in paras 5 and 10 of the plaint and it is absolutely false to say that the defendants agreed to supply the water of Thummala Tank for irrigating the suit land. There is no question of the defendants agreeing to supply the water of Thummala Tank which is a Government source of irrigation and over which the defendants have no right. It was further specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was never put in possession of the suit lands and if really the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 5300/- on 19-3-1981 in full satisfaction of the sale consideration, it is not known why the plaintiff failed to take a sale deed then and there. It is also not understood why the plaintiff should deposit Rs. 90/- towards the balance of sale consideration when the defendants accepted Rs. 5300/- as a rounded figure towards the sale consideration and hence the pleas of the plaintiff are contradictory. No reasons are given for the defendants to back on the sale agreement if really the sale agreement is executed as alleged. 90/- towards the balance of sale consideration when the defendants accepted Rs. 5300/- as a rounded figure towards the sale consideration and hence the pleas of the plaintiff are contradictory. No reasons are given for the defendants to back on the sale agreement if really the sale agreement is executed as alleged. The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the plaint allegations excepting those that are specifically admitted. ( 8 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were settled : 1. Whether the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff is true and binding on the defendants ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement from the defendants and whether the defendants have any interest in the suit property ? 3. To what relief ? ( 9 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 to 6 also were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-16 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D. W. 1 to D. W. 6 were examined. Exs. B-1 to B-10 were marked and exs. X-1 to X-6 also were marked. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants are having salable interest in both the Items of the plaint schedule property and executed the agreement of sale Ex. A-1 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration mentioned in Exs. A-1 and A-2 and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance on the strength of the said agreement of sale and accordingly the relief of specific performance and also the relief of perpetual injunction had been granted. A-1 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration mentioned in Exs. A-1 and A-2 and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance on the strength of the said agreement of sale and accordingly the relief of specific performance and also the relief of perpetual injunction had been granted. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of Appeal A. S. No. 26/88 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and the appellate Court after referring to the Issues which had been settled by the trial Court, without framing any specific Points for consideration in the appeal, proceeded to discuss the oral and documentary evidence available on record and having accepted the stand taken by the defendants that these Items of the property do not stand in the names of the defendants, came to the conclusion that the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff cannot be granted and accordingly allowed the Appeal. Hence the present Second Appeal. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff deposed in detail relating to the payment of consideration under the agreement of sale dated 21-1-1981 and also deposed that both the defendants executed the agreement of sale in his favour. The village karanam of the village had written the agreement of sale. P. W. 1 also deposed that he paid Rs. 5100/- to the 1st defendant on the date of the agreement. Ex. A- 1 is the suit agreement of sale and it was agreed between them that the remaining amount should be paid within two months from the date of agreement. The payment was endorsed on the back of agreement of sale and Ex. A-2 is the said endorsement. He paid the remaining amount to the Village Munsif and the Village munsif gave it to Subba Rao and one Srinivasa Rao and Duggirala Apparao were present when he paid Rs. 5300/- and they both attested Ex. A. 2 endorsement. It was further deposed that possession was delivered to him on the date of the second payment. e. , Rs. 5300/- and from that time onwards P. W. 1 had been in possession of the plaint schedule land and he had been paying cist for the lands since the year 1981 and Exs. A-3 to A-8 are the cist receipts. It was further deposed that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute registered document but they had been postponing. 5300/- and from that time onwards P. W. 1 had been in possession of the plaint schedule land and he had been paying cist for the lands since the year 1981 and Exs. A-3 to A-8 are the cist receipts. It was further deposed that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute registered document but they had been postponing. P. W. 1 also deposed certain other additional facts and further deposed that the defendants were trying to sell the land to one Srinivasa Rao and hence he filed the suit and he has deposited the remaining balance of sale consideration with interest in the Court. This witness specifically deposed that it is not true to say that the first Item does not belong to the 1st defendant and it belongs to his wife and this witness also deposed that it is not true to say that the second Item belongs to the brother of Subba Rao. P. W. 1 also deposed in relation to Exs. A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-15. This witness was cross-examined at length and several suggestions put this witness to the effect that Exs. A-1 and A-2 are forged had been specifically denied. ( 11 ) THE Village Karanam was examined as P. W. 2 who had deposed all the particulars in support of the version as spoken to by P. W. 1. P. W. 3 deposed about the relationship of the parties and also deposed that he made endorsement of payment on Ex. A. 1 in favour of the plaintiff by advance. Rs. 5300/- had been paid on that day and the plaintiff paid him and in turn he paid the 1st defendant and he scribed Ex. A-2 endorsement. P. W. 3 also deposed certain other details and the suggestions put to this witness in cross-examination had been denied. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 deposed about the plaintiff cultivating the suit lands for about 7 years and prior to the plaintiff and one Mankena Subba Rao cultivated the suit lands. P. W. 4 also deposed that the first Item of the Schedule land was purchased by Subba Rao about 20 years back. The second Item of the suit land fell in favour of Subba Rao in partition. P. W. 4 also deposed that the first Item of the Schedule land was purchased by Subba Rao about 20 years back. The second Item of the suit land fell in favour of Subba Rao in partition. P. W. 5 deposed that he knows the suit schedule land and these are in two Items and both these Items are wet lands and both the Items are being cultivated by P. W. 1 and prior to him Mankena Subba Rao was cultivating. P. W. 6 deposed that they had transplanted paddy crop in the suit schedule land and also deposed about the plaintiff's possession of the plaint schedule land. ( 13 ) AS against this evidence, D. W. 1, the 1st defendant, deposed in detail relating to Ex. B-1. This witness deposed that the 10 (1) Adangal would show that the pattas stand in the name of his brother. Ex. B-2 is the cultivation account. Ex. B-3 is the copy of Adangal and hence this witness deposed that they have no right over the suit schedule Items. D. W. 1 also deposed that his wife is cultivating her land with the help of the 2nd defendant and his brother is owning land on the West of the second Item of the Schedule. D. W. 1 also deposed that they never executed the agreement of sale in favour of p. W. 1 and he is having disputes with P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 and he is having disputes with the plaintiff also and they are not in talking terms. He had reiterated the same stand even in the cross-examination that these properties do not belong to them. ( 14 ) D. W. 2 is the wife of D. W. 1 who had deposed about the relationship and deposed that the first Item of the plaint schedule is wet land and it belongs to him and she also deposed about Ex. X-1 agreement of sale dated 24-1- 1963 executed in her favour by Mabu Saheb. Further, this witness deposed about ex. X series and deposed that on the date of Ex. X-5, the land was delivered to her and she has been cultivating the said land. D. W. 3 deposed about the execution of the agreement of sale by Mabu Saheb in favour of D. W. 2 and also deposed about Ex. X-5 endorsement. Further, this witness deposed about ex. X series and deposed that on the date of Ex. X-5, the land was delivered to her and she has been cultivating the said land. D. W. 3 deposed about the execution of the agreement of sale by Mabu Saheb in favour of D. W. 2 and also deposed about Ex. X-5 endorsement. D. W. 3 also deposed that he was the scribe of the land executed by the said Mabu Saheb in favour of D. W. 2. Ex. X-6 is the said document. This witness was cross-examined and suggestions put to this witness had been denied. ( 15 ) D. W. 4 deposed that he knows the father of D. W. 2 and also deposed that he knows Sarojini (D. W. 2) purchasing 50 cents of wet land at Korlamanda village from one Mabu Saheb in the year 1963 and he signed as the attestor in the said document. It is Ex. X-1. D. W. 4 also deposed that he is an attestor of ex. X-6 also and he was cross-examined and the suggestions put this witness had been denied. ( 16 ) D. W. 5 deposed that she worked as Sarpanch of the village of korlamanda during the years 1959-64 and he is the scribe of Exs. X-2 to X-4. D. W. 6 deposed that D. W. 1 is his brother and this witness deposed that they own land of an extent of Acs. 2-60 cents under Thummala Tank at Korlamanda. About 40 years back he paid Nazrana to the then Zamindar and came into possession of that land. At that time, it was consisting of shrubs and bushes and they reclaimed and cultivated the land and subsequently he converted it into wet land and even now he is in possession of the said land and he got patta during the survey and settlement. He also deposed certain other facts relating to the family. Several suggestions put to this witness also had been denied. ( 17 ) THE Court of first instance on appreciation of Ex. A. 1 to Ex. A. 6 and also Exs. B. 1 to B-10 and Exs. He also deposed certain other facts relating to the family. Several suggestions put to this witness also had been denied. ( 17 ) THE Court of first instance on appreciation of Ex. A. 1 to Ex. A. 6 and also Exs. B. 1 to B-10 and Exs. X-1 to X-9 and also the oral evidence of P. W. 1 to p. W. 6 and D. W. 1 to D. W. 6, came to the conclusion that the stand taken by the defendants that the properties do not belong to the defendants cannot be believed and also further came to the conclusion that in the light of the voluminous evidence available on record, the stand taken by them denying the very agreement of sale also cannot be believed and accordingly decreed the suit. The appellate Court without framing any specific Points for consideration at all, having discussed the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendants are not the owners of these Items and hence they cannot be forced to execute a sale deed and accordingly negatived the relief granted by the Court of first instance. It is unfortunate that despite the binding decisions of this Court, the decision of the Division Bench in Mir Abdul Hakeem khan Vs. Abdul Mannan Khadri and also Netyam Venkataramana and others Vs. Maharkali Narasimham (died per L. Rs.) and that too without framing any specific Points for consideration while deciding the Appeal when several factual controversies are involved, predominantly relying upon Ex. X series and also the evidence of D. W. 1 to D. W. 6, holding that the defendants are not the owners of the property and hence the relief of specific performance cannot be granted and reversing the well considered findings of the Court of first instance on such ground, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be sustained. It is stated that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the appellant/plaintiff is continuing in possession of the plaint schedule property. When the appellate Court is the final Court of fact and when all the factual controversies had not been appreciated in proper perspective, in a Second Appeal it would be very difficult to consider all those factual controversies. It is no doubt true that in a Second Appeal only substantial questions of law to be looked into and considered. When the appellate Court is the final Court of fact and when all the factual controversies had not been appreciated in proper perspective, in a Second Appeal it would be very difficult to consider all those factual controversies. It is no doubt true that in a Second Appeal only substantial questions of law to be looked into and considered. However, on a careful analysis of the findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court, this Court is satisfied that the appellate Court had not disposed of the Appeal in accordance with Law, especially in the light of the decisions referred to supra. Hence, the Decree and Judgment of the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate Court to record appropriate findings in accordance with Law in the light of the observations made by this Court. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Second Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated supra. Since this Court is making an order of remand, the parties to bear their own costs.