JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in OS No.1139 of 2007, dated 05.10.2018. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit. 3.1. Appellant-plaintiff has initially filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 26.07.2006 under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. The prayer in the suit and the schedule is as under: “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for performance of contractual obligation under the agreement of sale dated 26.07.2006 by directing the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the schedule of property by putting the plaintiff into actual physical possession of the Schedule of property or in the event if the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the concerned Sub-Registrar to register the schedule of property in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the schedule of property in the interest of justice: (OR) in the event, if it is not possible to pass a decree for the entire schedule of property, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree against the defendant No.1 by directing her to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff towards her exclusive share of 30.5% which comes to 157.25 Sq. yards out of total schedule of property admeasuring 314.15 Sq. yards in the interest of justice. B) Award the costs of the suit. C) and pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. yards out of total schedule of property admeasuring 314.15 Sq. yards in the interest of justice. B) Award the costs of the suit. C) and pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. D) and also to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the said sale deed dated 08.04.2011 vide registered document No.1346 of 2011 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is sham one and null and void and not binding on the plaintiff”. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that open land in Plot Nos.65 & 66 (part) in Survey No.36/2 and 30/4-2 admeasuring 314.15 Sq.yards, i.e., 61% share out of total admeasuring 515 Sq.yards situated at Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. Dist., and bounded by: North : 30' Road South : Plot No.55 & Part of Plot No.66 East : Remaining portion of Plot No.65 & 66 in possession of the plaintiff/Plot No.100 West : Plot No.65 (part) 3.2. It is stated in the original plaint that late N.Balaji is his brother and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is the wife of late Balaji. Balaji died on 05.10.2003 leaving behind defendant No.1 and her children i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 5 as his sole legal heirs (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein). During the life time of N.Balaji, plaintiff along with defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) had purchased open land bearing plot Nos.65 and 66 (Part) in survey No.36/2 and 30/4-2 admeasuring 515 Sq.yards through a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1998 vide document No.187 of 1998. As per the recitals of the sale deed appellant-plaintiff is having 39% share and respondent No.1- defendant No.1 and her husband Balaji are having 61% share. After the death of N.Balaji, defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) have become the owners of the share of N.Balaji (30.5%). After the death of N.Balaji, appellant-plaintiff and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 have orally partitioned the property, as per the oral partition the Eastern side portion i.e., from North to South was allotted to the appellant-plaintiff towards his 39% share and the remaining 61% share was allotted to the defendants i.e., Western side from North to South. Appellant-plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 5- defendants have been enjoying their respective allotted portions. 3.3. Appellant-plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 5- defendants have been enjoying their respective allotted portions. 3.3. On 26.07.2006 respondent No.1-defendant No.1 on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendant Nos.2 to 5 entered into agreement of sale of their 61% share for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and she has received Rs.70,000/- towards earnest money and as per Clause (3) of the agreement of sale respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has agreed to obtain permission from the Court to alienate the share of minors i.e., respondent No.2 to 5-defendant Nos.2 to 5 over the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1- defendant No.1 has filed O.P.No.1986 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 29A of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permission of the Court to alienate the share of respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendant Nos.2 to 5. Appellant-plaintiff has offered the balance sale consideration to respondent No.1-defendant No.1 on several occasions but she postponed the matter on one pretext or the other thereby, he got issued legal notice on 05.04.2007 calling upon the respondent Nos.1 to 5-defendant Nos.1 to 5 to perform their part of contract under agreement of sale, dated 26.07.2006. The notice was returned as no such person. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has not pursued O.P.No.1986 of 2006 thereby the O.P. came to be dismissed for default on 09.04.2007 and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for. 4. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 on her behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendant Nos.2 to 5 has filed common written statement and denied the contents of the plaint except admitting the relationship. It is further stated in the written statement that after the death of N.Balaji, the appellant-plaintiff harassed respondent No.1-defendant No.1 physically and mentally and the appellant-plaintiff has brought a speculative suit before the Court without obtaining permission to alienate the minors’ property to third parties is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. The learned Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the suit property under Agreement of Sale dated 26.07.2006? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendants to put suit schedule property into physical possession of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendants to put suit schedule property into physical possession of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the Agreement of sale dated 26.07.2006? 4. To what relief? 6. As the appellant-plaintiff failed to adduce evidence thereby the suit came to be dismissed for default on 09.06.2010. Suit came to be restored on 03.06.2011 as per the orders in I.A.No.1249 of 2010. After restoration of the suit the learned Trial Court has issued summons to respondent Nos.1 to 5 but they failed to appear. Appellant-plaintiff has filed I.A.No.519 of 2014 to implead respondent No.6-defendant No.6 in the suit which came to be allowed on 22.04.2014 and the plaint got amended and the relief claimed is as under: “Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for performance of contractual obligation under the agreement of sale dated 26.07.2006 by directing the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the schedule of property by putting the plaintiff into actual physical possession of the schedule of property or in the event if the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the concerned Sub-Registrar to register the schedule of property in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the schedule of property in the interest of justice: (OR) in the event, if it is not possible to pass a decree for the entire schedule of property, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree against the defendant No.1 by directing her to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff towards her exclusive share of 30.5% which comes to 157.25 Sq. Yards out of the total schedule of property admeasuring 314.15 Sq.yards in the interest of justice. (B) Award the costs of the suit. (C) and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. Yards out of the total schedule of property admeasuring 314.15 Sq.yards in the interest of justice. (B) Award the costs of the suit. (C) and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (D) and also to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the said sale deed dated 08.04.2011 vide registered document No.1346 of 2011 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is sham one, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff”. 7. Respondent No.6-defendant No.6 remained ex parte before the learned Trial Court. 8.1. Appellant-plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-B.Subhash, got marked Exs.A1 to A9. 8.2. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence adduced by the appellant-plaintiff with that of Exs.A1 to A9 has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff holding that the registered sale deed, dated 22.01.1998 which is purchased by the appellant-plaintiff, respondent No.1- defendant No.1 and her husband N.Balaji is not filed and further observed that Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale, dated 26.07.2006 cannot be enforced against the respondents-defendants as it has become an invalid document. 9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and adopted a loop sided approach in dealing with the issues involved therein, failed to exercise the discretionary power vested in it in proper perspective and has committed grave error in rejecting the specific performance of contract. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-defendant Nos.1 to 5 have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.6 during pendency of the suit by way of a registered sale deed, dated 08.04.2011 vide document No.1346 of 2011 after closer of the evidence of the appellant. 9.2. The learned trial Court failed to look into the evidence of PW.2-B.Subhash who is witness No.3 to the agreement of sale, dated 26.07.2006. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-defendant Nos.1 to 5 are having knowledge about the pendency of the suit in spite of it they alienated the property in favour of Respondent No.6-defendant No.6. 9.3. The learned trial Court failed to see that the appellant and PW.2-B.Subhash were not cross-examined by the defendants and the respondents-defendants did not adduce any evidence. Respondent Nos.1 to 5-defendant Nos.1 to 5 are having knowledge about the pendency of the suit in spite of it they alienated the property in favour of Respondent No.6-defendant No.6. 9.3. The learned trial Court failed to see that the appellant and PW.2-B.Subhash were not cross-examined by the defendants and the respondents-defendants did not adduce any evidence. Counsel to substantiate her contention relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) B.Santoshamma and Another Vs. D.Sarala and another , (2020) 19 SCC 80 (2) Maharaj Singh and others Vs. Karan Singh (Dead) through LRs and others , 2024 INSC 491 and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 10. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 failed to appear in spite of paper publication. 11. During pendency of the Appeal, appellant-plaintiff has filed IA.No.2 of 2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to receive the certified copy of document, dated 22.01.1998 vide document No.187 of 1998 and certified copy of order passed in OP No.1986 of 2006. My learned Predecessor instead of taking the above said I.A. along with the Appeal has allowed the same on 02.12.2024 which has become part of the record in the Appeal now. 12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has filed memo on 27.10.2025 vide USR No.119248 wherein it is stated as under: “It is submitted that as per the recitals of original sale deed vide document No.187 of 1998 dated 22.01.1998, the appellant/plaintiff is also one of the co-owner and co- sharer in respect of his share of 31% out of total land of 515 Sq.yards and in the event this Hon’ble Court partly allows the present appeal in respect of exclusive undivided share of 1 st respondent/defendant No.1 only i.e., land admeasuring 188.49 Sq.yards out of 515 Sq.yards, since the suit is filed for undivided share of 1st to 5th respondents/defendants No.1 to 5, as such the question of boundaries of respective shares of the claimants of the said land shall be decided in partition”. 13. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? POINT: 15. 13. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record. 14. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? POINT: 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has made two fold submissions (1) If the court is convinced with regard to the submissions made by the counsel the Appeal may be allowed, (2) In alternate counsel submitted that the matter may be remanded to the trial Court in view of the observations made in the judgment with regard to document No.187 of 1998, dated 22.01.1998 as additional documents are already received by the Court as per orders in IA.No.2 of 2024, dated 02.12.2024. 16. Ex.A1 is the Agreement of Sale, dated 26.07.2006. The vendors are respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein. By the date of Ex.A1 vendor Nos. 2 to 5 are minors, they are represented by their natural mother - N.Yadamma - respondent No.1 herein. As per clause No.3 of Ex.A1, it is mentioned that vendor No.1 (respondent No.1-defendant No.1) shall obtain permission from the Court to alienate the share of minor children in respect of suit schedule property. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were declared as majors during pendency of the suit vide IA.No.517 of 2014, dated 07.07.2015 and IA No.723 of 2017, dated 11.11.2017. 17. Ex.A2 is the served copy of OP No.1986 of 2006 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 under Section 29 (A) of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 against the appellant herein and to whom so ever it may concerned. The prayer in the OP is to permit the petitioner No.5 therein (respondent No.1 herein) to alienate the minor share over the schedule property i.e., plot admeasuring 314.15 square yards in plot Nos.65 and 66 part in survey No.36/2 and 30/4-2 situated at Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries. Ex.A3 is the legal notice got issued by appellant-plaintiff to respondent Nos.1 to 5 on 05.04.2007 calling her to execute registered sale deed in respect of agreement of sale, dated 26.07.2006. Exs.A4 and A5 are postal receipts, Ex.A6 is the postal receipt under certificate of posting and Exs.A7 and A8 are returned postal covers. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of respondent No.6-defendant No.6. Exs.A4 and A5 are postal receipts, Ex.A6 is the postal receipt under certificate of posting and Exs.A7 and A8 are returned postal covers. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of respondent No.6-defendant No.6. By the date of Ex.A9 dated 08.04.2011, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are shown as minors represented by their natural mother-guardian Smt. N.Yadamma (respondent No.1 herein). The schedule of the property shown therein is the very same property shown in the schedule in Ex.A2. 18. The learned trial Court has observed in the order that the appellant-plaintiff did not file document No.187 of 1998 which is the basic document showing the purchase of the property, secondly there is no proof filed by the appellant- plaintiff that the parties have made oral partition in which the appellant-plaintiff was allotted 39% share and the respondent Nos.1 to 5-defendant Nos.1 to 5 were allotted 61% share and thirdly, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 executed Ex.A1- Agreement of Sale, dated 26.07.2006 without permission of the Court to alienate the minor’s property which is mandatory as per Section 27, 29 of Guardian and Wards Act. 19. Appellant-plaintiff has filed certified copy of sale deed, dated 22.01.1998 executed by one P.Pandu in favour of N.Balaji, Smt. N.Yadamma (respondent No.1 herein) N.Shyam Kumar (appellant herein). It is mentioned in clause No.4 (vi) that vendees No.1 and 2 (respondent No.1 and her husband) shall have 61% share and the vendee No.3 (appellant herein) shall have 39% share in the said plot. The extent of the schedule is 515 square yards in plot Nos.65 and 66 part in survey No.36/2 and 30/4-2. Another document filed by the appellant is the certified copy of the order passed in OP No.1986 of 2006 which shows that OP is dismissed for default on 09.04.2007. 20. The observation of the learned trial Court is that the basic document i.e., registered sale deed, dated 22.01.1998 is not filed. 21.1. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act is to be construed and interpreted in a purposive and meaningful manner to empower the Court to direct specific performance by the defaulting party, of so much of the contract, as can be performed, in a case like this. 21.1. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act is to be construed and interpreted in a purposive and meaningful manner to empower the Court to direct specific performance by the defaulting party, of so much of the contract, as can be performed, in a case like this. To hold otherwise would permit a party to a contract for sale of land, to deliberately frustrate the entire contract by transferring a part of the suit property and creating third-party interests over the same : See B.Santoshamma 1 21.2. As the second plaintiff was not interested in getting the specific performance, the decree ought to have been restricted to the undivided one-half share in the suit property in favour of only the first plaintiff : See Maharaj Singh2. 22. In view of the additional evidence filed by the appellant, the evidence on record is not sufficient to enable this Court to pronounce judgment and finally determined the Appeal. This Court feels that retrial is considered necessary in view of the fact that the appellant-plaintiff has filed certified copy of the document, dated 22.01.1998 vide document No.187 of 1998 and also the certified copy of order passed in OP No.1986 of 2006, dated 09.04.2007. These are the material documents which goes to the root of the matter in deciding the lis and this Court feels that it is a fit case to remand the matter under Order 41 Rule 23-A of CPC. The learned trial Court shall follow Rule 23 of Order 41 of CPC. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the merits of the case in view of the additional documents filed by the appellant-plaintiff. 23. In view of Rule 26-A of Order 41 of CPC, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 18.02.2026 for the purpose of receiving directions from the learned trial Court as to further proceedings in the suit. 24. As the respondent Nos.1 to 6-defendant Nos.1 to 6 did not appear in the Appeal, so also they failed to appear before the learned trial Court. 24. As the respondent Nos.1 to 6-defendant Nos.1 to 6 did not appear in the Appeal, so also they failed to appear before the learned trial Court. This Court feels that the learned trial Court shall issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 6-defendant Nos.1 to 6 after its remand and at the time of retrial while considering certified copy of document dated 22.01.1998 vide document No.187 of 1998 and certified copy of order in OP No.1986 of 2006, dated 09.04.2007. 25. In the result, Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in OS.No.1139 of 2007, dated 05.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back as indicated in the Judgment without costs. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.