The main question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether the trial Court was correct in decreeing the suit for specific performance on the basis of an oral agreement for sale. O.S. No. 56 of 1985 was a suit filed for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale. Suit was decreed against which A.S. No. 129 of 1989 was filed. A.S. No. 227 of 1990 arises out of O.S. No. 45 of 1986 which was a suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1985 for an injunction restraining alienation of the property in question. O.S. No. 46 of 1986 against which A.S. No. 228 of 1990 was preferred by the first defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1985 was for injunction to remove certain illegal construction effected by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1985. All the suits were jointly tried by the Sub Court, Palghat. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, all these appeals have been preferred by the first defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1985. He filed A.S. No. 129 of 1989 along with second defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1985.

2. I shall first deal with the facts in O.S. No. 56 of 1985 against which A.S. No. 129 of 1989 was filed. Plaint schedule property admittedly