1. These two regular first appeals are filed by the tenth defendant in O.S. No.3341/1992 challenging the common judgment but separate decrees passed in O.S.No.3341/1992 and O.S.No.5540/1990, both of which are decreed. O.S.No. 5540/1990 is a suit filed for a bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property claiming right to the property under an agreement of sale dated 24.11.1985. The suit O.S. No. 3341/1992 is a suit filed for specific performance of the said agreement dated 24.11.1985. As per order on I.A.No.VII dated 18.2.1998, O.S. No. 5540/1990 was clubbed with O.S. No. 3341/1992. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has disposed of both the suits, decreeing the suits as prayed for.

2. The facts which gave raise to both these suits is one and the same and even the defence taken is also identical. Therefore, the facts set out in O.S. No. 3341/1992 and the written statement filed therein are clearly set out. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit are agricultural lands bearing S.No.38/1 measuring 20 1/2 guntas and S.No.37 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas, both situate at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and they are hereinafter referred to as the ‘schedule property’.

4. The plaintiff is a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The society is formed for the purpose of forming layouts and allotting sites to its members and also for the welfare of its members. One Shri Syed Mohideen was the absolute owner of the schedule property. He entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.11.1985 agreeing to sell the schedule property for a consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-per acre. The said Syed Mohideen received a sum of Rs.2,97,500/- by cheque dated 24.11.1985 towards sale consideration and the cheque was duly encashed. Subsequently, the plaintiff has made payments of Rs.10,000/- on 4.6.1986, Rs.1,000/-on 18.6.1986, Rs.20,000/- on 22.9.1986, Rs.2,750/- on 17.12.1986 and Rs.30,000/- on 17.12.1986 by way of cheques all of which have been duly encashed. Thus, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.3,61,250/- towards sale consideration, which amount has been duly acknowledged by Shri Syed Mohideen.

5. Syed Mohideen died on 9.1.1988 intestate. Defendants-1 to 6, 8 and 9 are the children of Shri Syed Mohideen and defendant-7 is the wife of Shri Syed Mohideen. They have inherited the properties of late Syed Mohideen and they are bound by the contract entered by late Syed Mohideen in respect of the schedule property with the plaintiff.

6. The case of the plaintiff is that the schedule properties are agricultural lands. It was specifically agreed between the parties that the sale deed has to be executed by the owner in favour of the society within six months from the date of the conversion notice issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. It was specifically agreed that the owner has to co-operate with the purchaser in obtaining the conversion certificate from the competent authority for non-agricultural purpose. Shri Syed Mohideen, having received a sum of Rs.3,61,250/- out of Rs.4,85,375/-, which is the total consideration payable for the sale of the schedule properties. Handed over the possession of the schedule properties to the plaintiff society. Only a sum of Rs.1,24,125/- has to be paid towards the balance sale consideration. Shri Syed Mohideen also deposited the original title deeds, which were in his custody, with the plaintiff society, as security by way of equitable mortgage for the amount paid. Shri Syed Mohideen could not execute the sale deed in favour of the society in view of the fact that the property was not converted for non-agricultural purposes. Shri Syed Mohideen, with the assistance of t