Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment of the appellate Court, the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No.458 of 2015 arises from the following facts.

According to the respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the original plaintiffs, land bearing Survey no.46 admeasuring about 3 Hectare 26R was owned by the appellant nos.1 to 3. The said land was initially owned by the mother of the appellant no.1 and after her death, the appellant no.1defendant no.1 became its owner. The defendant nos.2 and 3 are the children of the daughter of one Anjanabai and they also had a right in the suit property. As the plaintiffs wanted to purchase the suit property, they had approached defendant nos.1 to 3 who had shown their readiness to sell the property to the plaintiffs. Agreement dated 09.06.1997 was accordingly scribed by one Kamlakar Gotmare on the instructions of the defendant nos.1 to 3. The total consideration agreed was Rupees Four Lakhs and an amount of Rupees Fifty Thousand was paid as earnest amount to the defendant no.1. The defendant nos.1 to 3 signed the agreement and possession of the suit property came to be delivered to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, a total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- came to be paid by them to the defendant no.1 from time to time, the last payment being made on 01.08.2000. It is further pleaded that defendant no.1 was not interested in executing the sale-deed despite receiving considerable amount of consideration. The plaintiff no.1 and defendant nos.2 and 3 were required to challenge the mutation entries effected by the Talathi and in the appellate proceedings, it was directed that the defendant no.1 should approach the Civil Court to resolve the dispute with regard to title. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 was not interested in executing the sale-deed and to avoid his liability, he had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1208 of 2004 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff and defendant nos.2 and 3. In those proceedings, it was found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. During pendency of that suit, the defendant nos.2 and 3 received an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 02.05.2005 as well as further amount of Rs.5,000/- in cash in presence of two witnesses. However, thereafter, the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.4 convinced the defendant nos.2 and 3 to change their mind and therefore, the defendant nos.1 to 3 decided to gift the suit property to the defendant no.4. On 05.07.2006, the defendant nos.1 to 3 made a statement on oath that there was no dispute amongst them and that they were in possession of the suit property. On that basis, they executed a gift-deed dated 06.07.2006 in favour of defendant no.4. On getting knowledge of the aforesaid gift-deed, the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 09.06.1997 alongwith relief of perpetual injunction. Said suit was filed on 24.09.2006 being Special Civil Suit No.926 of 2006.

3. The defendant no.1 filed his written statement and denied the claim as made. The execution of the agreement dated 09.06.1997 as well as receipt of amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was denied. The possession of the plaintiffs was also denied. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. Assuming that there was any agreement between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs, the same was terminated long back and there was no cause of action to file the suit. It was then pleaded that in view of gift-deed dated 06.07.2006, the defendant no.4 was the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant no.2 in his written statement also denied the agreement in question. The case as pleaded by the plaintiffs was denied and the execution of the gift-deed in favour of defendant no.4 was reiterated. The plea of bar of limitation was also raised. Defendant no.3 in her written statement also raised similar pleas and opposed the suit. T