L. Narasimha Reddy, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals 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. 619 of 2013. The first appellant is the lessee. He took the premises owned by the first respondent on lease. He filed O.S. No. 1113 of 2012 in the Court of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court -cum -VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27.09.1997. He pleaded that after the premises was taken on lease, the first respondent came forward to sell the property and accepting the offer, he paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - towards consideration. It was pleaded that in spite of repeated demands, the first respondent did not execute the sale deed.
(3.) THE first respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to her, the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ - was borrowed on the strength of the promissory note and a clause was incorporated depicting as though it is an agreement of sale. The respondents filed O.S. No. 1427 of 2002 in the same Court for eviction of the first appellant. It was pleaded that though a notice was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to vacate the premises, he did not comply with the same. That suit was opposed by the first appellant by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that the property was covered by an agreement of sale and a suit for specific performance is pending.;