JUDGMENT : This regular appeal filed under Section 96 CPC is directed against decree and judgment in O.S.No.85 of 1996 dated 17.06.1996 of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla. (It is a common judgment in O.S.No.85 of 1996 and O.S. No. 12 of 1983. No appeal is preferred against that part of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.12 of 1983). 2. During pendency of this appeal, the 2nd respondent died and the appeal was dismissed as abated by order dated 07.08.2011, since his L.Rs. were not brought on record. The respondents 3 to 5 were brought on record as per orders in A.S.M.P.No.1862 of 2011 dated 01.06.2012. 3. The plaintiff is the appellant. The respondents are the defendants. 4. The appellant laid the suit for the relief of specific performance of the contract under an agreement for sale dated 10.07.1986 against the respondents, for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for damages at Rs.1500/-per year till possession is delivered. Alternatively, he requested for refund of Rs.56,000/- alleged to have had been paid under the suit agreement for sale. 5. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as under: “Guntur District, Bapatla Sub Registrar Office, Bapatla Town, Bapatla Municipal area, Old ward No.15, New Ward No.13, Locality No.8, Door No.8-5-28, thatched house with brick and another thatched house walls bounded by East : Golakaram Venkayamma South : Compound wall of Agricultural college West : Joint galli of Yadamma Venkateswarlu and Dande Veeraiah North : Municipal Road In between the above boundaries a thatched house with brick walls and thatched shed situated in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents equivalent to 484 Sq.yards = 404.7 sq.mts.” It shall be referred to hereinafter as ‘the suit property’, for convenience. 6. Before considering and evaluating the material and evidence on record in this appeal, it is desirable to know the case of the parties in the pleadings. 7. (a) The case of the appellant in the plaint is that under the suit agreement for sale dated 10.07.1986, the 1st respondent agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.56,700/- in his favour and that on the date of the agreement, he paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance. 7. (a) The case of the appellant in the plaint is that under the suit agreement for sale dated 10.07.1986, the 1st respondent agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.56,700/- in his favour and that on the date of the agreement, he paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance. Further case of the appellant in the plaint is that for payment of balance consideration, time was fixed till 10.08.1986, in default to pay interest at 12% p.a., and that on 16.07.1986, the appellant paid Rs.51,000/- as part sale consideration for which an endorsement was made on the suit agreement for sale. It was also stated in the plaint that the suit property was delivered in possession to the appellant by the 1st respondent along with the title deed of this property viz., sale deed dated 06.03.1984 as well as a photo copy of the Will dated 27.02.1983 of Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah. (b) The appellant further stated that he was always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the suit agreement for sale and that, on account of the default of the respondents, he also got issued a legal notice dated 28.08.1986 to the 1st respondent who had sent a belated reply on 04.09.1986 denying his claim. (c) The 2nd respondent is the husband of the 1st respondent and it is stated in the plaint that he instituted the suit for permanent injunction against the appellant in O.S.No.199 of 1986 in the court of the learned District Munsif, Bapatla, that made the appellant to suspect the 1st respondent in the context of performance of her part of the contract under the agreement for sale. It is also alleged in the plaint that at the request of the respondents they were permitted to remain in the suit property for a short period in spite of delivering possession to him, which permissive possession continued without handing him over the premises. 8. Both the respondents filed separate written statements denying the claim of the appellant in the plaint mainly contending that the 1st respondent did not execute the alleged suit agreement for sale nor receive any consideration thereunder nor deliver the title deed and a copy of the Will as alleged on 16.07.1986 upon receiving alleged part consideration of Rs.51,000/-. 8. Both the respondents filed separate written statements denying the claim of the appellant in the plaint mainly contending that the 1st respondent did not execute the alleged suit agreement for sale nor receive any consideration thereunder nor deliver the title deed and a copy of the Will as alleged on 16.07.1986 upon receiving alleged part consideration of Rs.51,000/-. Both of them called this suit agreement for sale a rank forgery and that no part of amount thereunder was received by the 1st respondent. She went to the extent of stating that she did not know the appellant at all and claimed that she did not have any right or interest to the suit property, which belonged to her husband viz., the 2nd respondent, who is a rightful owner of the same. She also contended that she used to sign any document always and was in perfect health nor there was any occasion for her to subscribe thumb impression to the documents. Thus, both of them alleged that the appellant is guilty of fraud. 9. In his separate written statement, the 2nd respondent further contended that he had purchased this property under an agreement for sale dated 27.07.1981 from the rightful owner Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah, who had purchased the suit property in a Court auction. He asserted that he has been in continuous possession of the suit property in his own right where he has been living with the 1st respondent, who is his second wife, where he also got constructed a house. He denied the claim of the respondent that he attested the suit agreement for sale as well as the endorsement therein. 10. O.S.No.28 of 1983 was filed by Sri Dande Gayathri in the court of learned District Munsif, Bapatla against him and others alleging that Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah had sold the suit property to her under an oral contract for sale, seeking relief of specific performance, which was then pending adjudication. He also claimed that since Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah died, he could not obtain regular registered sale deed in terms of the agreement in his favour while denying that a registered sale deed was executed by his son Sri Shivaji on 06.03.1984 in favour of the 1st respondent, which is a void document even otherwise. He also claimed that since Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah died, he could not obtain regular registered sale deed in terms of the agreement in his favour while denying that a registered sale deed was executed by his son Sri Shivaji on 06.03.1984 in favour of the 1st respondent, which is a void document even otherwise. He further alleged in his written statement that when the appellant tried to take possession of the suit property forcibly he was constrained to institute O.S.No.199 of 1986 for perpetual injunction. Both the respondents denied that the appellant is entitled for refund of any amount. 11. On the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge settled the following issues and additional issue for trial: “1. Whether the contract of sale dated 10.07.1986 is true, valid and binding on the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of refund of any amount? 3. To what relief? Additional issue: Whether the suit contract of sale is created or not on the paper where the thumb impression of the 1st defendant as alleged by the 1st defendant?” 12. At the trial, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 apart from P.W.2 to P.W.4 to support his contention, while relying on Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The 1st respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and D.W.2 is the 2nd respondent. They also examined D.W.3in support of their contention while relying on Ex.B1 to Ex.B9. 13. The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the material and evidence held that Ex.A1 suit agreement for sale and Ex.A2 endorsement thereon were executed by the 1st respondent, that were attested by the 2nd respondent, rejecting their defence of forgery. Thus, issue no.1 and additional issue were held in favour of the appellant. 14. However, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the case of the appellant that he paid Rs.51,000/- under Ex.A2 endorsement for want of proof and also delivery of Ex.A3 title deed apart from copy of the Will. Ultimately holding that the appellant approached the court with unclean hands, who is not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance, dismissed the suit while directing refund of Rs.5,000/- advance amount paid under the alleged agreement for sale to the appellant. Thus, remaining issues were held by the learned trial Judge. 15. Ultimately holding that the appellant approached the court with unclean hands, who is not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance, dismissed the suit while directing refund of Rs.5,000/- advance amount paid under the alleged agreement for sale to the appellant. Thus, remaining issues were held by the learned trial Judge. 15. Incidentally it has to be stated that the learned trial Judge also held that the suit property was purchased by the 1st respondent under Ex.A3 sale deed from rightful owner and disbelieved the case of the respondents that the 2nd respondent has exclusive right, title or interest to the suit property, while holding that he did not have possession of this property. 16. Against this decree and judgment the appellant has preferred this appeal. 17. Sri Yogesh, learned counsel, for Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri V.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, addressed arguments. 18. Now, the following points require determination in this appeal: 1. Whether Ex.A2 endorsement is supported by consideration of Rs.51,000/- alleged to have had been paid by the appellant to the respondents 1 and 2? 2. If the appellant is entitled for relief of specific performance against the respondents? 3. To what relief? POINT No.1: 19. The 1st respondent had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant under Ex.A1 agreement for sale on 10.07.1986 for a consideration of Rs.56,700/- and that, on the same day she received an advance of Rs.5,000/- thereunder. As per the terms of this agreement for sale time was granted till 10.08.1986 for payment of the balance. 20. On 16.07.1986 under Ex.A2 endorsement on Ex.A1 sale agreement, Rs.51,000/- was paid as a part of sale consideration. The contents of Ex.A2 recorded this fact and that delivery of the suit property was also given to the appellant thereunder by the 1st respondent. 21. The contention of the appellant is that Ex.A3 sale deed dated 06.03.1984 along with a photo copy of the Will dated 27.02.1983 of Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah were handed over on the same day by the 1st respondent to the appellant. 22. The defence of both the respondents is one of complete denial of all these transactions. They went to the extent of calling Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 being an outcome of forgery. 22. The defence of both the respondents is one of complete denial of all these transactions. They went to the extent of calling Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 being an outcome of forgery. The 1st respondent tried to explain that Ex.A3 sale deed was stolen from their house by their son and son-in-law. At the trial, suggested defence is that Sri Chennakesavarao, son-in-law of the 1st defendant, got this document forged in the name of the appellant, which is however not pleaded defence in the written statement. The respondents 1 and 2 contended that they have been in possession of the suit property in their own right and not in permissive possession, on account of the facility extended by the appellant to remain in this property for a short time after Ex.A2 transaction. 23. The learned trial Judge rejected this substantial defence of denial of execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and plea of forgery of the respondents 1 and 2 relying on the testimony of P.W.2 to P.W.4. 24. P.W.2 is the attestor of Ex.A1 agreement for sale. P.W.3 is the scribe of Ex.A2 endorsement and P.W.4 attested it. The pertinent observations of the learned trial Judge in paras 19 and 20 of the impugned judgment are as under: “19. …. D.W.2 in cross examination admitted that he is a signatory to Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 when confronted with them. No prudent person will forge the signature of the husband while creating a document said to have been executed by the wife. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 amply established that the 1st defendant executed Exs.A1 and A2. The plea of forgery regarding Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 raised by the defendants cannot be believed. The evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 regarding the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is not true.” 25. These findings and observations are binding on the respondents 1 and 2 and other respondents also, since no cross-appeal or cross-objection is presented against this decree and judgment questioning them. 26. The learned trial Judge has also directed refund of Rs.5,000/- paid as an advance under Ex.A1 agreement for sale to the appellant by the respondents 1 and 2. This finding has also become final for the same reason. 27. Contract for sale under Ex.A1 agreement is indeed established whereby the 1st respondent had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant thereunder. This finding has also become final for the same reason. 27. Contract for sale under Ex.A1 agreement is indeed established whereby the 1st respondent had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant thereunder. The terms and conditions therein, in the circumstances are proved and established. 28. The learned trial Judge further observed in paras 19 & 20 as under: “It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay Rs.51,000/-. The plaintiff did not file any recorded evidence to show that by the date of Ex.A2 he was possessing Rs.51,000/-. Apparently Ex.A2 creates a doubt in the mind of the court for the following reasons. (1) the words ‘other Language’ is in different ink from the other-writing, (2) there is no space in between the words ‘other Language’ and ‘other Language’ when compared to the words in other sentences. The sentence ‘other Language' is incomplete. 20. Therefore, the passing of Rs.51,000/- under Ex.A.2 as deposed by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 cannot be believed. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 clearly established that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, the 2nd defendant attested them. Hence these issues are answered accordingly.” 29. One of the circumstances considered by the learned trial Judge in accepting the contention of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent is figured as one of the attestors to Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. There is clear admission of the 2nd respondent as D.W.2 at the trial that he is signatory to Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. This answer was elicited in cross-examination of D.W.2 on behalf of the appellant upon confronting the document. 30. The learned trial Judge as referred to above in para-19 recorded that there are certain material alterations as if converting Rs.1,000/- as Rs.51,000/- in figures by addition of ‘5’ and the word ‘’ in words while describing Rs.51,000/-. 31. It was never the defence of the respondents 1 and 2 either in their written statement or at the trial specifically of the alleged material alteration of the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. In fact, if such defence had been taken in the written statement, it militates against its principal and main defence of denial of execution of these documents and calling them forgery. However, suggestions were made in the course of trial in this context to P.W.3 attestor to Ex.A2. In fact, if such defence had been taken in the written statement, it militates against its principal and main defence of denial of execution of these documents and calling them forgery. However, suggestions were made in the course of trial in this context to P.W.3 attestor to Ex.A2. Since it being not the pleaded defence in the written statement, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The trial Court cannot make out a new case for the respondents (defendants), which they did not choose to plead or set up as one of their defences in the suit. It is clearly beyond the permissible limits of appreciation of evidence and material on record. Thus, the learned trial Judge clearly faulted in this respect. Therefore, it is one of the grounds on which the observations and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge need to be interfered and have to be set aside. 32. Even otherwise, the evidence adduced by the appellant by himself as P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 clearly supported the transaction under Ex.A2. While P.W.1 supported the same deposing to such facts, it is the clear version of P.W.3 that Ex.A2 is supported by consideration of Rs.51,000/- and that P.W.1 paid the said sum thereunder in his presence, of P.W.4 Sri Tanneeru Sambasivarao and the second respondent (D.W.2). He further deposed that Ex.A3 title deed was handed over during this transaction to the appellant and that both the attestors subscribed their signatures to Ex.A2 in his presence. 33. In cross-examination on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it was elicited from P.W.3 that he noticed the appellant bringing money from his house during Ex.A2 transaction, which took place at the house of the respondents. He further stated that the appellant informed him that the suit property was delivered to him thereunder. He further stated that during this transaction under Ex.A2 the respondents 1 and 2 were present. 34. P.W.4 corroborated the testimony of P.W.3 in all material particulars and that of P.W.1 supporting this transaction in all respects. In cross-examination on behalf of the respondents, it was elicited from this witness that Ex.A2 was drafted in his presence and P.W.3 informed him the contents of Ex.A2 and thereupon he subscribed his signatures to it. 34. P.W.4 corroborated the testimony of P.W.3 in all material particulars and that of P.W.1 supporting this transaction in all respects. In cross-examination on behalf of the respondents, it was elicited from this witness that Ex.A2 was drafted in his presence and P.W.3 informed him the contents of Ex.A2 and thereupon he subscribed his signatures to it. He also corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Ex.A3 was handed over to the appellant and that possession of the suit property was delivered thereunder. 35. The crucial circumstance in this context is the signature of the 2nd respondent to this endorsement as an attestor. This admitted situation goes a long way to support the version of the appellant. If at all, the transaction thereunder did not take place in the manner stated therein, the 2nd respondent would not have attested it. Further such signature of the 2nd respondent is seen in Ex.A2 at the place where it ought to be. It is indicative of the fact that he signed in Ex.A2 being aware and conscious of its contents. This significant circumstance clearly cuts at the root of defence and goes against the very finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in this context. It confirms the fact that Rs.51,000/- was received by the 1st respondent in that transaction, possession was delivered and thereupon when this endorsement was made on the reverse of Ex.A1, scribed by P.W.3 while D.W.2 and P.W.4 attested it, acknowledging not only the contents of Ex.A2 but also the transaction thereunder. Thus, presence of the 2nd respondent being an attestor and a party to this transaction holds any amount of significance and as an important factor, completely supporting the claim of the appellant. Added to it, no motive is attributed to P.W.3 and P.W.4 of interestedness to support the appellant. Version of D.W.2 is proving that they were known to him by then. 36. Therefore, for the above reasons the contention sought to be advanced now in this appeal for the respondents cannot stand nor the reasons so assigned by the learned trial Judge questioning Ex.A2 stand. 37. For these reasons, the finding required to be recorded now is that Ex.A2 transaction is proved being genuine and that there is sufficient material and evidence that it was an endorsement made upon receiving Rs.51,000/- by the 1st respondent from the appellant. 38. 37. For these reasons, the finding required to be recorded now is that Ex.A2 transaction is proved being genuine and that there is sufficient material and evidence that it was an endorsement made upon receiving Rs.51,000/- by the 1st respondent from the appellant. 38. The finding of the learned trial Judge that there is no material placed as to passing of this part of consideration, in the circumstances, has no basis. The evidence on record makes out that the appellant has about Ac.20-00 of land at Ramannapet at Krishna District and his in-laws gave him Ac.5-00 of land. He also owns a house at Chirala, which is his ancestral property. He was then working as a driver in APSRTC at Machilipatnam Depot. 39. Cross-examination of any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant at the trial did not bring out any material to discredit their testimony including with reference to financial capacity of the appellant to purchase this property under Ex.A1. It is also explaining the circumstances that made the 1st respondent to sell this property to the appellant. It is another circumstance to consider in this matter. 40. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. POINT No.2:- 41. When execution of Ex.A1 is established and proved and also of Ex.A2, the appellant should necessarily be entitled to the relief of specific performance of the terms of this contract against the 1st respondent. He has every right to insist and demand the 1st respondent to perform her part of the contract. What all expected of the appellant under this contract was performed by him and only a small amount of sale consideration was to be paid by the date of Ex.A2. 42. One of the observations of the learned trial Judge in this respect is that the appellant did not explain why he did not obtain a regular sale deed in those circumstances. Again it has to be stated that this finding is without basis, particularly having regard to the nature of defence set up by the respondents 1 and 2 at the trial. 43. Before institution of the suit, finding that there was an attempt on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to sell away the suit property, Ex.A4 notice dated 28.08.1986 was issued calling upon the 1st respondent to perform her part of the contract. 43. Before institution of the suit, finding that there was an attempt on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to sell away the suit property, Ex.A4 notice dated 28.08.1986 was issued calling upon the 1st respondent to perform her part of the contract. She gave a reply by herself in Ex.A5. The contents of Ex.A5 reply apparently had propelled the appellant to file this suit seeking the relief of specific performance on the strength of Ex.A1. 44. The apprehension of the appellant of alienation of this property is vindicated. Version of D.W.2 in cross-examination is proving it. An agreement was entered into to sell this property by the 1st respondent to one Sri Mudraboina Yesu on 23.08.1986. According to D.W.2, it was later on cancelled for which purpose he paid Rs.21,000/- to Sri Yesu. 45. The admitted facts in this case are that Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah instituted O.S.No.328 of 1968 for realization of the amount under a mortgage debt against the original owner of this property. It was decreed in his favour with passing of final decree on 07.08.1970 in the suit on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Bapatla. This property was purchased by him in E.P.No.255 of 1975 on 21.07.1975. It is established by Ex.B4-certified copy of the sale certificate issued therein by the above Court. It was delivered to Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah in E.A.No.561 of 1975 in E.P.No.255 of 1975 proved by Ex.B5 certified copy of certificate of delivery dated 27.03.1976. 46. Thereupon, as seen from Ex.B2 dated 27.12.1981 Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah executed an agreement for sale agreeing to sell the suit property to the 2nd respondent for consideration of Rs.7,500/- and on account of the death of Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah, this contract for sale did not fructify into a sale deed. A Will was executed by Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah on 27.02.1983 regarding disposition of his properties and Sri B.Raja Shivaji, his son and the executant of Ex.A3 sale deed dated 06.03.1984, was one of the beneficiaries thereunder. A suit was filed in respect of this property by Smt. Dande Gayathri, Wife of Sri Dande Veeraiah in O.S.No.20 of 1983 and as seen from Ex.B7 to Ex.B9 the above suit was dismissed. A suit was filed in respect of this property by Smt. Dande Gayathri, Wife of Sri Dande Veeraiah in O.S.No.20 of 1983 and as seen from Ex.B7 to Ex.B9 the above suit was dismissed. Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah as well as the 2nd respondent and his vendors were parties to O.S.o.20 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Bapatla. 47. Thus, these events and circumstances clearly point out that Ex.A3 sale deed for the suit property was executed by Sri Bolisetty Raja Shivaji, Son of Sri Bolisetty Seetharamaiah dated 06.03.1984 in favour of the 1st respondent. It remained a proved fact in this case, on the material that by the date of Ex.A1 sale agreement, the 1st respondent was the lawful owner of this property. 48. Though in a suit for specific performance, a defence of this nature denying right, title and interest to the property cannot be set up by the vendor, the above circumstances are considered only for the purpose of testing the veracity of the defence set up by the respondents 1 and 2. The learned trial Judge in the judgment under appeal also considered the legal position in this context relying on Muni Sanappa Vs. Gurunanjappa, AIR 1950 Madras 90, N. Venkataramana vs. M. Narasimham, 1991 (1) ALT 195 and Netyam Venkataramanna and Ors. Vs. Mahankali Narasimhan, 1994 (1) ALT 185 . 49. Therefore, in the light of the material available on record, when the nature of defence set up by the respondents 1 and 2 is clearly established as false, it cannot be given any credence. At every stage they came up with false pleas in this matter. Basing on the material and evidence produced by the appellant, when he did perform his material part of the contract under Ex.A1, he is entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance in terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. The 1st respondent is bound to execute the sale deed in terms of Ex.A1. 50. The respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded in this appeal by virtue of orders in A.S.M.P. 1862 of 2011 dated 01.06.2021. They cannot have any claim to the suit property, in the above circumstances. 51. The learned trial Judge did not appreciate the material on record in proper perspective and the so-called discretion exercised by him is most improper which is on the verge of illegality. They cannot have any claim to the suit property, in the above circumstances. 51. The learned trial Judge did not appreciate the material on record in proper perspective and the so-called discretion exercised by him is most improper which is on the verge of illegality. Therefore, in this regular appeal, in the interests of justice, interference with the decree and judgment of the trial Court is required. 52. The 2nd respondent is no more and it is only for the 1st respondent to execute a sale deed in terms of Ex.A1 agreement for sale in favour of the appellant. Role of other respondents is completely out of context and in the circumstances, they do not derive any benefit out of the transaction, if any, they had entered into with reference to the suit property with the respondents 1 and 2. 53. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. POINT No.3: 54. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, the appeal has to be allowed setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the suit has to be decreed as prayed, directing the 1st respondent to execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant pursuant to Ex.A1 agreement for sale and to deliver him possession of the suit property. The claim for damages in the circumstances of the case, is not allowed. 55. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part with costs throughout in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The 1st respondent is directed to execute a sale deed and register in favour of the appellant pursuant to agreement for sale dated 10.07.1986 within three (03) months from this day subject to the appellant depositing the balance sale consideration to the credit of O.S.No.85 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla within one month from this day. If the respondent fails to execute a sale deed and register as stated above, the appellant is at liberty to approach the aforestated Court to get a sale deed executed and registered through the process of the Court. The appellant is also entitled for delivery of possession of the suit property consequently. The 1st respondent (1st defendant) is at liberty to withdraw the balance sale consideration so deposited without furnishing any security. The appellant is also entitled for delivery of possession of the suit property consequently. The 1st respondent (1st defendant) is at liberty to withdraw the balance sale consideration so deposited without furnishing any security. In respect of the relief for damages, the same is rejected and consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court to that extent stand confirmed. As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.