1. In both these Miscellaneous Appeals identical issues arise on practically the same set of facts and therefore with the consent of the parties the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission itself.

2. M.A. No. 38/04 is directed against the order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the 1st Sub-Judge, Danapur in Title Suit No. 24 of 2003 by which he has allowed the petition dated 17.4.2003 filed by the plaintiffs- respondents 1st Set under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed that the defendants-appellants shall not make attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed land till the disposal of the suit.

3. M.A. No. 39 of 2004 is also directed against the order dated 24.11.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 by which also a petition dated 17.4.2003 under the same provisions has been allowed in the same terms.

4. The defendants-appellants and the defendants-respondents llnd set nos. 3 to 5 are common in both the appeals.

5. Both the suits had been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1 and 2 in the respective appeals for a direction upon the defendants-appellants to execute a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of Schedule-l property and if the defendants fail to do so within the time fixed by the court the sale-deed be executed and registered through the process of the court and according to law conveying absolute title to the plaintiffs. The further relief sought for in the suit is for restraining the defendants by an order of ad-interim injunction from executing and registering the sale-deed in favour of any other persons with respect to the suit land and in any manner disposing of the land or creating any encumbrance thereon detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs till disposal of the suit and confirm the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

6. The defendant-appellant no.2 and defendant-appellant no.1 are the firm and proprietor of the said firm which is the owner of the suit land in both the cases.

7. The case of both the sets plaintiffs was that the defendants-appellants had entered into an agreement with them and executed in both the cases an agreement for sale on 27.3.2002 for the sale of the respective suit lands and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale 5 kathas of land in each of the case would be sold at the rate of Rs. 63,000/- per katha and the total consideration money comes to Rs. 3,15,000/-, out of which the plaintiffs in each case have already paid the ad- vance money of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs. 65,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the suit land. It was asserted that the defendants- appellants gave possession of the suit land to the respective plaintiffs. It was further agreed that the sale-deed would be executed and registered in between 27.3.2002 and 31.1.2003. However, the request by the plaintiffs for such registration was not paid heed to and even the legal notice sent on 16.12.2002 in each of the cases had no effect and the defendants-appellants failed and neglected to perform their part of contract and hence the suit was filed.

8. The defendants-appellants appeared in the suits and filed their written statements in which, inter alia, apart from raising the plea of maintainability it was alleged that the agreement for sale is most fabricated, sham, without consideration and a document prepared by means of practicing fraud. The statement regarding payment of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in each of the cases was denied as concocted and further stand taken is that the agreement for sale could not have been executed in view of the amendment made in the Registration Act and such a document could not be a legal document in the absence of registration.

9. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the aforesaid petitions dated 17.4.2003 under Order 39, R