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 i