2nd respondent has been vacated on the ground that he has not come to the Court with clean hands and the documents filed by both the parties reveal that originally the property belonged to Ramudamma and it is not the ancestral property of the 2nd respondent. Though it is a fact that the petitioners though claimed that the 1st respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the wife of the 1st petitioner on 24.03.1986, they have not taken any steps to file a suit for specific performance against the 1st respondent during all these days. It is argued that only in 2007, the name of the 1st respondent was entered in the revenue records and therefore, the delay occurred. Whatever it may be, that is an issue to be considered by the Court at the time of considering the claim for specific performance of agreement of sale. The records filed by both the parties reveal that both the parties were issued pattadar passbooks and both of them have paid the land revenue, and therefore, it is not clear as to who is in possession of the property as on today. Of course, the petitioners claim that they have been in possession of the property and they specifically pleaded that they have raised sugarcane crop, whereas the respondent has not come with a specific plea as to the nature of crop raised by him. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in dispute. In view of the same, both the parties are directed not to create any third party rights and maintain status quo. Since it appears that the petitioners raised crops, their possession cannot be disturbed.
