T. Ch. Surya Rao, J. - CCCA No. 36/98 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-1997 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 311 of 1980 by the unsuccessful defendants 2 and 5 while arraying the other defendants in the suit as respondents 2 to 7.

2. CCCA No. 58 of 1998 has been preferred by the remaining defendants 3, 4 and 6 to 8 against the same Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 311 of 1980 while arraying the defendants 1, 2 and 5 as respondents 2 to 4. The plaintiff in the suit is the first respondent in both the Appeals.

3. Initially an ex parte decree was passed on 24-12-1981 when all the defendants remained ex parte in the suit. Later the said decree was set aside pursuant to the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 392 and 393 of 1983 qua the defendants 2 and 5 alone on 20-3-1989. The petition filed by the 7th defendant in I.A. No. 436 of 1983 was dismissed. The petitions filed by the remaining defendants seeking to set aside the ex parte decree also resulted in dismissal. 8th defendant, however, carried the matter to the Apex Court eventually and he was permitted to submit written arguments in the suit without allowing to participate in the trial. The ex parte decree that had been passed earlier become final against all other defendants except defendants 2 and 5. The unsuccessful defendants 2 and 5 filed the former appeal and the other defendants filed the later appeal against the ex parte decree. The defendant No. 8 although was permitted to submit written arguments in the suit and in fact filed the written submissions did not join the defendants 2 and 5 in the former appeal. But preferred to join the other defendants in the later appeal.

4. Both the appeals therefore can be disposed of together inasmuch as they arise out of the same judgment and decree in O.S. No. 311 of 1980. It is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid any confusion.

5. Briefly stated the facts are thus :

The Life Insurance Corporation Employees Co-operative House Building Society (for short 'the plaintiff society') represented by its Vice-President laid the suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 28-3-1974. The vacant land measuring 16000 sq. yards more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaintiff (for short the 'suit land') was originally belonged to the father of the 8th defendant, the grandfather of the defendants 1 to 7 and one M.A. Quadeer. The said Quadeer since died unmarried, the father of the 8th defendant and the grandfather of the defendants 1 to 7 became the absolute owners. After their death and the death of the father of the defendants 1 to 7, defendants 1 to 8 became the absolute owners thereof. The plaintiff society through its Joint Secretary negotiated with the defendants 1 to 7 and their late mother Basheerunnisa Begum for purchasing the suit land. Defendants 1 and 2 under a registered general power of attorney represented the 8th defendant. The bargain was settled and the society agreed to purchase the suit land at the rate of Rs. 17 per sq. yard and eventually the suit agreement of sale dated 28-3-1974 came to be executed by the defendants 1 to 7 and their late mother Smt. Basheerunnisa Begum who died subsequently on 27-11-1975. The terms agreed upon between the parties were set forth in the agreement and the sale consideration was worked out at Rs. 2,43,525. On the date of agreement an amount of Rs. 20,000 was paid by the plaintiff society under a cheque drawn in favour of the first defendant. Later the plaintiff society paid an amount of Rs. 20,000 on 7-8-1975 and Rs. 15,000 on 11-11-1975 by means of cheques drawn in favour of the first defendant who endorsed the receipt duly on the agreement itself in token thereof. The balance amount of Rs. 1,58,555 was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff society took possession of the suit land in