specific performance was filed in the year 2007, after the lapse of more than 12 years, by advancing a case that the period of agreement was subsequently extended four times by receiving additional advance, out of the sale consideration by making endorsement on the reverse side of the agreement. The trial court found that the agreement is not genuine, but a creation in collusion with the first defendant, intended to defeat the decree in O.S.No.294/1997. The property was auctioned by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the second defendant is the successful purchaser for a sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand only). Delivery of property was also effected after the issuance of sale certificate and its confirmation. The said decree and judgment is assailed on the ground that the finding rendered by the trial court on two issues regarding the relief of specific performance and the protection granted under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is legally not sustainable and that the finding rendered by the court below that the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff is not genuine, are wrong and cannot be sustained.
