JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal in R.F.A.No.1583/2005 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.352/1987 against the dismissal of the suit for specific performance and the appeal in R.F.A.No.1582/2005 is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.2934/1987 decreeing the suit for permanent injunction vide common judgment dtd. 13/9/2005 on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH. No.2).

2. The factual matrix of the suit in O.S.No.2934/1987 is that the plaintiff has purchased the property from T.V. Govindaraj, who is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.352/1987 vide sale deed dtd. 17/12/1986 and she has been put in possession over the suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 is interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant-C.S. Lalitha in the written statement is claiming that, she has entered into an agreement of sale dtd. 10/5/1982 and in part performance of the contract, she has been put in possession of the suit schedule property, she has paid the sale consideration of Rs.40,000.00 out of Rs.50,000.00 and she has put up the construction in the suit schedule property. Based on these pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues in O.S.No.2934/1987:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2. Does she further prove that the defendant is tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property on 3/7/87?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

4. What order? What decree?".

3. The plaintiff-C.S.Lalitha in O.S.No.352/1987 contend that the defendant-T.V.Govindaraj had entered into an agreement of sale dtd. 10/5/1982 and plaintiff's mother and first defendant's mother are sisters and first defendant is the permanent resident of Hubli. The first defendant is an allottee of the plaint schedule property by the then CITB and she was put in possession of the same under the possession certificate dtd. 20/6/1975. In terms of the sale agreement, she has paid the amount of Rs.40,000.00 out of the total sale consideration of Rs.50,000.00 on the date of the agreement. Because there was a non-alienation condition for the period of 10 years, the property was to be conveyed in favour of plaintiff only after the expiry of the said period i.e., after 25/7/1985. The first defendant delivered all original documents of title relating to the suit property. The first defendant delivered the possession of the suit schedule property as the part performance of the agreement to sell.

4. In pursuance to the agreement, the plaintiff got a plan for construction of a building in the said site and submitted the same for licence also to BCC on 29/11/1982, as the said application was not rejected within a period of 30 days, it was deemed to have been granted and accordingly, she has put up a construction in the suit site measuring about 5 squares. In the first week of November, 1982, the first defendant visited the plaintiff's house and demanded additional sum of Rs.15,000.00 and when the plaintiff expressed her unwillingness to increase the price, the first defendant with an intention to coerce the plaintiff to pay some additional price, filed O.S.No.3418/1982 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff's husband. In the said suit, the plaintiff's husband contended that he is nothing to do with the site and the question of his interfering with defendant's possession did not arise, as the first defendant was not in possession of the site, but the plaintiff was in possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale.

5. After filing of the written statement, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed in the said suit for injunction and ultimately, the suit also came to be dismissed. In spite of the same, the plaintiff requested the first defendant to conclude the contract by registering the sale deed, the first defendant failed to execute the sale deed and also gave the notice in the newspaper on 25/9/198