( 1 ) THESE appeals can be disposed of together since they emanate from a common judgment and as the parties are also the same.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful defendant in O. S. No. 648 of 1985 and O. S. No. 187 of 1990 and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 108 of 1988 is the appellant in these appeals. She is assailing the common judgment dated 6. 8. 1993 passed by the learned Additional chief Judge-cum-Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, hyderabad, in O. S. No. 648 of 1985, O. S. No. 108 of 1988 and O. S. No. 187 of 1990 and the decrees passed therein.

( 3 ) IT is expedient here to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed to avoid any confusion. The factual matrix may be set forth at the outset thus: One Karnataka mangamma filed the suits O. S. No. 648 of 1985 and O. S. No. 187 of 1990 against one a. Prameela Reddy-the defendant. The defendant in turn filed the suit O. S. No. 108 of 1988 against the plaintiff in the other two suits. While the suits O. S. No. 648 of 1985 and O. S. No. 187 of 1990 were filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction respectively; O. S. No. 108 of 1988 was filed for the relief of eviction by the defendant. The subject matter in all the three suits is one and the same and is the house bearing No. 2 RT 125-B and bearing municipal No. 7-1-621/247 situate at Sanjeeva reddy Nagar, Hyderabad (for short the suit house ). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit house was allotted to the defendant by the A. P. Housing Board on the basis of an agreement of sale-cum-lease under the document dated 10. 12. 1969. She (defendant) was inducted into possession thereof on 14. 12. 1969. Pursuant to the terms stipulated inter alia in the document dated 10. 12. 1969 the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5,851/- initially and agreed to pay the balance of 80% of the cost in annual instalments spread over for a period of 25 years. Since the defendant was in financial troubles and was unable to pay the annual instalments and having been afraid of the forfeiture clause entailing the forfeiture of the amount already paid in the event of any default, she entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff agreeing inter alia to sell the house to the plaintiff who should clear the balance instalments of sale consideration of the suit house to the A. P. Housing Board. The agreement of sale dated 5. 12. 1970 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and received an amount of rs. 5,851/- thereunder representing the amount paid by the defendant initially under the agreement of sale-cum-lease which she entered into with the A. P. Housing Board. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed after the payment of the entire sale consideration by instalments by getting the sale deed registered in her name by A. P. Housing Board itself or to execute the registered sale deed directly by her in favour of the plaintiff after getting the sale deed executed by A. P. Housing Board in her (defendant) favour. The plaintiff was given vacant possession of the suit house immediately under the agreement and thus the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit house since then. The plaintiff paid all the instalments to the a. P. Housing Hoard from 11. 12. 1970 to 14. 4. 1980, even far before the period fixed under the document dated 10. 12. 1969 and obtained the receipts for a total amount of rs. 41,310. 01 ps. After such clearance, when the plaintiff approached the defendant for execution of the sale deed, the defendant promised to get the sale deed executed in her favour by the A. P. Housing Board first and in turn to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but she has been postponing till the month of August, 1985. On 1. 8. 1985 the husband of the defendant came with anti-social elements to the suit house and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know on that day that the A. P. Hou