B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The respective sole defendants are the appellants herein and the respective self-same sole plaintiffs in both the matters are the respondents. Both the suits in O.S. No.1960 of 1988 and 1959 of 1988 are filed by the self-same plaintiff Saleh against the respective defendants Dhanraj and Vijenderkumar Kedia. The trial Court on separate trial decreed both the suits for the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale respectively, to execute and register sale deeds on receiving balance sale consideration and to deliver possession and with costs.

2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal common almost in both the appeals of the respective suits are that the decree and judgment respectively of the trial Court supra are contrary to law, unlawful and against probabilities of the case, perverse and misconceived against the canons of justice.

3. It is specifically contended by the defendant-appellant respectively supra that the trial Court ought to have seen that sale agreements Ex.A-21 and A-1 respectively on which the suits are based, are spurious, plaintiff P.W-1 admitted that he was not in India at the time of execution of the agreement, the trial Court should have seen that it was not the case of the plaintiff that the agreement was executed by his nominee on his behalf, that too when it bares signature of the plaintiff and therefrom trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit and by appreciating the fact that defendant respectively did not execute and sign the sale agreement, that the trial Judge should have sent the signatures of the defendant in dispute to an expert for examination and comparison and plaintiffs inaction in cause sending also substantiates the signature on the agreement respectively is not of the defendant respectively and it is a forged one respectively.

4. It is the further contest that the trial Court should have seen that there is no valid contract and agreement and the question of alleged readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract by the plaintiff does not arise, that Guljarilal Kedia is not related to the defendant in O.S. No.1958 of 1988 and there is no relationship for his managing the property of the defendant to allege or presume, but for son to the defendant in O.S. No.1959 of 1988, that Ex.A-19 memorandum dated 11.02.1986 no way speaks Ex.A-21 agreement, merely because it is alleged other nominees of Guljarilal Kedia executed sale deeds in favour of plaintiff for the so called sale agreement Exs.A-2 to A-6 dated 05.11.1985 (pursuant to which alleged sale deeds said to have been obtained by plaintiff), that does not automatically follow that these defendants/appellants in A.S. No.147 & 149 of 1997 also should have executed sale deeds, when they not even executed so called agreements and any persons connected with the same even not examined and D.W-3 Govindam one of the alleged executant's of Ex.A-6 agreement even denied said execution in favour of the plaintiff and thereby sought for setting aside the trial Courts suit decree for specific performance and to dismiss the suit claim by allowing the appeal respectively.

5. It is also the contention that the trial Court should have seen the Ex.A-17 plaint copy in O.S. No.1947 of 1988 will no way help the case of the plaintiff, it is a suit for injunction against plaintiff and merely because alleged nominees of Guljarilal Kedia, father of the defendant herein, executed the so called sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to the agreements Exs.A-2 to A-6 that does not automatically follow defendant herein also should execute sale deeds and the trial Court therefrom went wrong in decreeing the suit for specific performance instead of dismissing the same to set aside the trial Courts decree granting specific performance and dismiss the suit claim by allowing the appeal.

6. It is also the contest of the respective appellants/defendants through learned senior counsel Sri Venugopal in the co