Challenge in both these appeals from order preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the order dated 24.9.2012 passed in Civil Suit Nos.79/2011 and 80/2011 respectively passed below Exh.5, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected injunction application pending the suit for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from transferring, selling, gifting, renting or creating third party right or handing over physical possession to anyone over the suit land, more particularly, described in the plaint situated at village Sarbhod, Tal: Bardoli, Dist: Surat admeasuring 7487 sq. mtr. and 15783 sq. mtr. respectively.

2. Since the dispute relates to the sale agreement dated 12.12.2009 entered into between the purchaser and seller of the suit land stipulates identical terms and conditions governing sale transaction except price of the suit land, they are hereby disposed of by this common judgment so as to avoid repetition of facts and findings. The parties to the proceedings would be referred to as per their original status in the plaint.

3. According to the plaintiff, the owner of suit land entered into agreement to sell on 12.12.2009 and total sale price was fixed at Rs.47,76,920/. On the date of execution of the agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.3 lac to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the owners) as per clause 2 of the sale agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale deed and vide clause No.3 of the agreement to sell, time limit to execute the sale deed is for four months, but subject to extension of time of execution of sale deed after mutual consultation. It is specific case of the plaintiff that as per clause 10 of the agreement to sell, the owners had agreed to give the suit land with clear and marketable title and if any defect in the title of the suit land is found, then the owners were required to get the title clear at their cost and the owners had also further agreed to give proof of clear and marketable title of the suit land as per various clauses of the sale agreement, more particularly, clauses 5, 6, 12 and 13. It is further the case of the plaintiff that clause 15 of the agreement specifically provides that owners would be responsible to hand over peaceful possession of the suit land after taking the possession of the land from one Mr. Devilal Shah i.e. defendant No. 4, who is cultivating the suit land. According to the plaintiff’s case, during the period from March to September, 2010, the plaintiff approached the owners personally and demanded the proof regarding clear and marketable title of the suit land as per sale agreement and also shown readiness and willingness to pay the remaining balance amount and requested to execute the sale deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of March, 2010, when the plaintiff obtained relevant entries of the suit land from the revenue records, the plaintiff shocked to find that on 20.9.2010, provisional entry No. 6936 was mutated in the revenue records in the name of one Mr. Devilal Shah the defendant No.4 in pursuance to family settlement. Thereafter, the plaintiff appraised the said facts to the owners and tried to know true facts and at that time, the owners assured the plaintiff that they would obtain physical possession of the suit land from said Devilal Shah and will execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the owners have filed appeal before the Deputy Collector against said Devilal Shah challenging Entry No. 6936. Vide order dated 20.10.2011, the Deputy Collector was pleased to cancel the said entry and against the said order, Mr. Devilal Shah filed Revision Application No. 324 of 2011 before the District Collector, Surat and said proceedings are pending as on this date. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in January, 2011, the plaintiff a