HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.M.P. No. 1398 of 2011 in A.S. No. 708 of 2010 and A.S. No. 708 of 2010 DATED: 13.07.2011 Between: Kilari Gopal Naidu & another ..Appellants And Battinapatla Sahanavathi and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 44 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 09.01.2006. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 04.08.2010 whereby the plaintiffs were directed to pay the balance of sale consideration to the defendants within a period of two months from the date of the judgment and the defendants are directed to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.A1. If the defendants fail to receive the amount and execute regular registered sale deed, the plaintiffs are directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration into the Court within a week after expiry of two months period and obtain a sale deed through the Court according to law. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.08.2010, the defendants have filed the present Appeal Suit. Both the parties have filed the present application seeking to record the terms of joint Memorandum of Compromise duly signed by themselves as well as their advocates, by allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is stated that in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 09.01.2006, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the defendants, but the defendants failed to execute regular registered sale deed even after the balance of sale consideration was paid. Inasmuch as the suit was decreed, during the pendency of the appeal, both the parties have filed the present application stating that whatever amount the defendants received from the plaintiffs has been returned to the plaintiffs, who have no claim whatsoever over the suit schedule property, and therefore, the plaintiffs desire to withdraw the suit itself. We have examined both the parties who have agreed to the terms of compromise. Accordingly, A.S.M.P. No. 1398 of 2011 and A.S. No. 708 of 2010 are allowed in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the judgment dated 04.08.2010 delivered by the Principal District Judge, Nellore, is set aside and O.S. No.44 of 2007 shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 13.07.2011 ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR,J bcj