JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy 1. These three appeals are inter-connected and are between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in S.A. No. 758 of 2011. 3. One Mr. Chappidi Venkateswarlu, father of respondents 1 and 2 was the owner of Ac. 3.50 cents of land in Survey No. 444/4 of Kunkalamarru Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District. He is said to have agreed to sell the property to the appellant herein for a consideration of Rs. 48,500/- . An agreement of sale is said to have been executed on 02.07.1989 and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is said to have been paid. It was pleaded that possession was also delivered to the appellant. The transaction was to be completed on or before 02.07.1991. According to the appellant, she was waiting for the conclusion of the contract. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 filed O.S. No. 80 of 1992 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parchuru against the appellant for the relief of perpetual injunction. They pleaded that part of the suit schedule property was purchased by them through sale deed, dated 15.11.1990 and that the appellant started interfering with their possession without any basis. Respondent No. 6 also filed O.S. No. 81 of 1992 claiming remaining part of the property on the same allegations. She too pleaded that the purchase was made through a document, dated 15.11.1990. 5. After receiving the notices in the two suits referred to above, the appellant filed O.S. No. 167 of 1994 in the same Court for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 02.07.1989 and for setting aside the two sale deeds, dated 15.11.1990 executed by late Venkateswaralu in favour of respondents 4 and 5 on the one hand and respondent No. 6 on the other hand. All the three suits were clubbed and relevant issues were framed. The trial Court decreed O.S.Nos.81 and 81 of 1992 and dismissed O.S. No. 167 of 1994 through a common judgment, dated 27.09.2003. The appellant filed A.S. Nos. 43 and 41 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parchuru against the decrees in O.S. Nos. 80 and 81 of 1992 and A.S. No. 42 of 2003 against the decree in O.S. No. 167 of 1994. The appellant filed A.S. Nos. 43 and 41 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Parchuru against the decrees in O.S. Nos. 80 and 81 of 1992 and A.S. No. 42 of 2003 against the decree in O.S. No. 167 of 1994. Through separate judgments, dated 21.04.2006, the lower appellate Court dismissed all the three appeals. Hence, these three second appeals. 6. Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Sri Ram Murthy, Learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 6. Respondents 1 to 3 remained ex parte through out the proceedings. 7. The proceedings in relation to the land in survey No. 444/4 started with the filing of two suits by respondents 4 to 6 for the relief of perpetual injunction. The appellant herein was the only defendant in the suits. Within two years thereafter, the appellant filed O.S. No. 167 of 1994 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale and for cancellation of sale deeds. The trial Court framed the relevant issues and common trial was undertaken. On behalf of the respondents, P.W. s 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.27 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B.1 to B.3 were filed. Exs.X.1 to X.9 were also taken on record. As observed earlier, O.S. Nos. 80 and 81 were decreed and O.S. No. 167 of 1994 was dismissed. In the three appeals preferred by the appellant, the lower appellate court framed some points and dismissed all of them. 8. The agreement of sale in favour of the appellant was marked as Ex. B.1. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the trial Court no doubt recorded a finding to the effect that Ex. B.1 is proved. 9. However, the sale deeds in favour of respondents 4 to 6 marked as Exs. A.1 to A.2 were held to be bona fide and without notice of the agreement in favour of the appellant. 10. Ex. B.1 is dated 02.07.1989. According to the terms thereof, the transaction was to be completed by 02.07.1991. In case, there was any default on the part of the party to the agreement, the appellant was expected to take steps to enforce her rights under Ex. B.1. She did not do so. 11. 10. Ex. B.1 is dated 02.07.1989. According to the terms thereof, the transaction was to be completed by 02.07.1991. In case, there was any default on the part of the party to the agreement, the appellant was expected to take steps to enforce her rights under Ex. B.1. She did not do so. 11. Respondents 4 to 6, who purchased the properties under Exs. A.1 and A.2, dated 15.11.1990 filed the suits in the year 1992 against the appellant alone. Even then, the appellant did not take any steps to seek enforcement of her rights under Ex. B.1. It is two years thereafter, that she filed O.S. No. 167 of 1994. The suit was hopelessly belated. The relief provided for under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary. Further, the rights under an agreement of sale are subject to the subsequent purchases made by third parties, without notice. The plea of respondents 4 to 6 that they did not have the notice or information about Ex. B.1, by the time they purchased the property through Exs. A.1 and A.2 remained unrebutted. 12. Though the appellant pleaded that possession was delivered to her on the date of execution of Ex. B.1, in the course of trial, she admitted that she was dispossessed by respondents 4 to 6. She filed the suit for specific performance two years after her dispossession. Another curious part of it is that the 2nd respondent against whom the appellant claimed the relief of specific performance, is none other than her husband. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court took these aspects into account and rendered the judgments according to law. this Court does not find any substantial question of law in these appeals. 13. Therefore, the second appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.