ORAL JUDGMENT:

.1. These two appeals relate to the same piece of land bearing Gut No.99, admeasuring 1 Hector 94 R of village Chilwadi, Taluka and Dist.Osmanabad. Appellant and respondents in both the appeals

.are also the same persons. Hence, both these appeals are decided by this common Judgment.

.2. Thefacts giving rise to the appeals are common and briefly stated below.

.The appellant is the owner of the suit land bearing Block No.99 of village Chilwadi, Taluka and Dist.Osmanabad. By an agreement of sale dated 2nd August, 1976 the appellant agreed to sell to the respondents the suit land for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- by accepting earnest amount of Rs.5,000/-. The sale was to be executed after the permission under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, the Act" "Consolidation Act") was obtained. According to the respondents in pursuance of the said agreement of sale the appellant also handed over possession of the suit land to them. Respondents issued a notice to the appellant on 8th of April, 1978 calling upon him to execute the sale deed in their favour. He neither replied, nor complied with the notice. The respondents, therefore, filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.65/1978 against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 2nd of August, 1976 and for an injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing their possession of the suit land. Appellant resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending that he had never agreed to sell the suit property to the respondents. He denied the execution of the agreement of sale dated 2nd of August, 1976. In the alternative, he pleaded that the alleged transaction between him and the respondents was a money lending transaction and he had never agreed to sell the suit property to the respondents.

3. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court held that the appellant had agreed to sell the suit property to the respondents by executing an agreement of sale dated 2nd of August, 1976 and further held that the appellant had also accepted Rs.5,000/- as an earnest money and had refused to execute the sale deed when called upon to do so by the respondents. The trial court also held that the respondents had proved that they were in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The trial court rejected the defence of the appellant that the suit transaction was a money lending transaction and that the appellant had never intended to sell the suit property to the respondents. The trial court further held that respondents had not proved that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and, therefore, dismissed the suit for specific performance and only directed refund of earnest money of Rs.5,000/-.

.4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the respondents filed an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.193/1982 in the District Court at Osmanabad. The lower appellate court confirmed all the findings of the trial court which were recorded in favour of the respondents. Lower appellate court however reversed the findings regarding readiness and willingness recorded by the trial court and held that the respondents were ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate court reversed the ultimate decision of the trial court and

.passed a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing the possession of the respondents. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant has filed Second Appeal No.204/1988 before this Court.

5. In the mean while and after the decision of the trial court in Suit No.65/1978 refusing the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell, the appellant filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.341/1983 for injunction restr