T.RAJANI, J. - (1.)The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.30 of 1988 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, prefers this appeal having been dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 18.09.1997.
(2.)Briefly the facts of the case are as follows:
The first defendant is the mother of the second defendant and the second defendant is the only issue to the first defendant. The first defendant purchased a site of Ac.0.02 cents equivalent to 120 sq. yards in Mallikarjuna Nagar, from one Botsa Lakshmi, under a sale deed dated 13.10.1982. The second defendant borrowed certain amounts from the plaintiff and others with the help of which the defendants constructed the plaint schedule terraced house in the above site. The amount borrowed by the second defendant under different pronotes, from the plaintiff and others, swelled up to Rs.85,237/- by 23.05.1987 and being unable to discharge the debts, both the defendants executed and delivered an agreement of sale dated 23.05.1987 in favour of the plaintiff, for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- in respect of the suit schedule property. At the time of agreement, original sale deed dated 13.10.1982 was also handed over to the plaintiff. The debts borrowed by the second defendant for the construction of the suit schedule house were discharged by the plaintiff at the instance of the first defendant and the pronotes were kept as vouchers at the instance of the defendants for the purchase of the house. The sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- was satisfied to the extent of Rs.85,237/-, which are the debts and out of the balance sale consideration Rs.24,763/-, an amount of Rs.14,763/- was paid at the time of agreement and there remained a balance of Rs.10,000/-.

The agreement stipulated that a registered sale deed should be executed on or before 22.01.1988. The plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed several times and also issued notice dated 26.01.1988 but the defendants did not respond to the notice. Hence, the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(3.)The first defendant remained ex parte. The second defendant in the written statement denied the averments in the plaint and according to the second defendant; she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. In fact, the second defendant pledged her gold ornaments and borrowed amount from one Sabbella Ramakumari of Gollala Mamidada, at usurious rate of interest of Rs.10/- per cent per month. The amount lent was in all not more than Rs.15,000/-. The second defendant believed said Ramakumari and put her signatures on the blank stamp papers at the time of lending on pledge of gold ornaments. The second defendant never executed any pronotes in favour of anyone, as stated in the plaint. The second defendant does not know the identity of the persons mentioned therein except Ramakumari and her husband. Their family is reputed for strong arm methods and use of violence in realization of debts and interest. While so, disputes arose between the defendants and one Thumpala Somasundaram about the schedule house. The creditor Ramakumari learnt about the same and came to the house of the defendants along with some men and took possession of the title deed of the site from the defendants by show of force, stating that gold security has become insufficient and some more security is required. Out of fear of violence the defendants kept quiet. The defendants never raised any money from the plaintiff.