3 and 4 filed a separate written statement, wherein one of the plea raised was that the agreement for sale dated 10th August, 1977 is a forged document and, therefore numberright has passed on to the plaintiff respondent.One Venkatesam, alleged to be the adopted son of Narasamma, sold the property in dispute to one Bejawada Venkaiah through a registered sale deed.
1 and 2, the plaintiff respondent brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the property dated 10th August, 1997.
Subsequently, Bejawada Venkaiah by two separate sale deeds, transferred the said property in favour of defendant Nos.
3, the appellant herein, claims to have purchased the property in dispute from defendant No.
1 and 2 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff respondent for the sale of the said property.
Since the sale deed was number executed by defendant Nos.
3 and 4 were also impleaded.
1 and 2 did number companytest the suit and the proceeding against them remained ex parte.
1 and 2.
1 and 2, defendant Nos.
Before the trial Court.
Thereafter, defendants Nos.
Defendant No.
Defendant Nos.
In this suit apart from defendant Nos.
