1. Since both these appeals raise a challenge to the common judgment of the appellate Court dated 07.01.2005, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are that the suit property which is field Gat No.127 admeasuring 1 Hectare 45 R with half share in the well situated therein was owned by one Khandu-defendant no.1. According to the plaintiff, said Khandu in February 1987 agreed to sell the aforesaid field to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. On 19.02.1987, amount of Rs.24,000/- was paid after which a document was duly executed and the plaintiff was put in possession. The sale-deed was to be executed by 01.12.1987. Since the suit field came within the Koradi Project, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Competent Authority for its transfer. On 02.04.1988, balance amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid and a fresh document came to be executed. Though the plaintiff had performed her part of the contract, the defendant no.1 did not obtain the necessary permission. As the sale-deed was not executed, the plaintiff made request to the defendant no.1. However, the defendant no.1 along with his wife and son made false revenue entries and his family members filed Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 1990 for perpetual injunction. That suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance based on the aforesaid agreement.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was pleaded that the defendant no.1 had obtained an amount of Rs.300/- from the plaintiff and had signed on a blank stamp paper. Though the amount borrowed was returned, the plaintiff did not return the stamp paper and converted it into an agreement of sale. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties held that the agreement was not duly proved. It however held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. It therefore partly decreed the suit and while refusing the relief of specific performance and the alternate relief of refund of earnest amount granted permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff except by due process of law. Being aggrieved by that decree, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.123 of 2002 seeking the relief of specific performance while the defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.125 of 2002 challenging the decree for permanent injunction. The appellate Court by its common judgment held the agreement dated 02.04.1988 to be duly proved. The defence as regards money lending transaction was not proved. While refusing the relief of specific performance on the ground that there was no permission from the Competent Authority for transferring the said land, the plaintiff was held entitled to protect her possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the said Act’). The appeal of the plaintiff was thus partly allowed and the appeal filed by the defendants came to be dismissed.

5. While admitting Second Appeal No.318 of 2006, the following substantial questions of law were framed.

(i) Whether the first appellate Court could have granted the benefit of the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the plaintiff so as to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing his possession, by modifying the decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against his dispossession, except by due process of law ?

(ii) Whether the benefit of the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could be available to a plaintiff in a suit filed by him for grant of decree for specific performance of contract ?

(iii) Whether the permanent injunction as granted by the first appellate Court could be granted when the performance of the contract depends on the action of a third party and the defendant could not have been said to be lia