S.A.No.368 of 2006 is filed against the decree and judgment dated 02.01.2006 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2004 by the V Additional District Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Kurnool at Nandyal whereby and whereunder the learned V Additional District Judge reversed the decree and judgment dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal in O.S.No.154 of 1998.

2. S.A.No.369 of 2006 is filed against the decree and judgment dated 02.01.2006 passed in A.S.No.6 of 2004 by the V Additional District Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Kurnool at Nandyal whereby and whereunder the learned V Additional District Judge reversed the decree and judgment dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal in O.S.No.136 of 1998.

3. These two appeals are between the same parties. The subject matter of dispute being the same and the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in these second appeals being the same, both these appeals are disposed of by the following common judgment.

4. I have heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the appeals.

5. O.S.No.136 of 1998 is filed for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.1.52 cents in Survey No.195 of Peda Davalam Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, locally known as Vegula chenu, hereinafter will be referred to as ‘the schedule mentioned land’, against the defendants 1, 2 and 4 and subsequently, he filed O.S.No.154 of 1998 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.07.1985 against the defendants 1 to 4.

6. The learned trial Court tried both the suits jointly, recorded evidence in O.S.No.136 of 1998 and delivered common judgment referring the parties as plaintiff and defendants, as arrayed in O.S.No.154 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer the parties in the same fashion.

7. The brief facts relevant for considering the substantial questions of law involved in these second appeals are stated as follows:

8. The plaintiff purchased the schedule mentioned land under an agreement to sell dated 30.07.1985 from the defendants 1 and 2, who executed the agreement to sell in his favour by receiving the entire sale consideration on the same day. The plaintiff was put in possession of the schedule mentioned land under Ex.A.1-agreement to sell dated 30.07.1985. According to the plaintiff, Sri Karimaddela Sivalingam, 4th defendant, having colluded with the defendants 1 and 2 tried to trespass in to the schedule mentioned land, then he filed O.S.No.136 of 1998 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1, 2 and 4. Subsequently, he also filed O.S.No.154 of 1998 seeking specific performance of contract in terms of Ex.A.1-agreement to sell, dated 30.07.1985 against the defendants 1 to 4. Both the suits are based on Ex.A.1-agreement to sell, dated 30.07.1985 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 2.

9. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to 15 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Whereas, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to 19 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, decreed both the suits granting relief of specific performance in O.S.No.154 of 1998 and also granting the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.136 of 1998 against the defendants. In both the suits, the first defendant remained ex parte. The learned trial Court basing on the evidence of PW.1-plaintiff, PW.2-scribe of Ex.A.1-agreement to sell, dated 30.07.1985, PW.3-attestor of Ex.A.1 held that Ex.A.1-agreement to sell, dated 30.07.1985 is proved by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was put in possession of the schedule mentioned land under the said agreement by the defendants 1 and 2 after receiving entire sale consideration. The learned trial Court as well as the f