DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. We are considering these two appeals together, since they are underpinned on the same set of causes of action and have been filed on the basis of allegations that are concatenated to each other. The reliefs sought are also dependent on each other and consideration of one inevitably will lead to the resolution of the other.

2. Both the above appeals have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.2 of 2017 on the files of the Sub Court, Kattappana.

3. The essential claim of the appellant in the plaint is that he had entered into an agreement dated 28.1.2016 with the respondents for the purpose of purchase of a cardamom estate comprised of an extent of 23.5 acres, out of which 15.5 acres is patta land and 8 acres is lease land. The appellant says that as per the agreement, the sale consideration fixed was Rs.12,50,000/- per acre. He claims that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as advance and that certain other payments were made subsequently. We also notice that as per the case of the appellant, there was an original agreement dated 28.12.2015. viz., one executed one month before the agreement that is referred to above. He says that under the terms of the first agreement, he was to make payment of Rs. 59,00,000/- within a month. This led the parties to draw up another agreement which is the subject matter of the present suit, showing the amount of advance paid as Rs. 60,00,000/- in total, after taking into credit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid earlier under the original agreement. The appellant says that on 30.8.2016, he made a further payment of Rs.40,00,000/- and that the receipt of the same by the respondents is endorsed on the reverse side of the first page of the agreement. The appellant then proceeds to assert that even before the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid to the respondents on 30.8.2016, he was put in possession of the plaint schedule property by the respondents on or some day after 31.4.2016 (sic), in anticipation of the payment of Rs.40,00,000/- on 30.8.2016. On such asseveration's, he claims that he was in continuous possession on or some time after 31.4.2016 (sic) and alleges that attempts were thereafter made by the respondents to dispossess him when he requested for execution of the sale deed under the terms of the agreement for sale.

4. On allegations as above, the appellant herein as plaintiff in the suit filed I.A. No.99 of 2017 praying that the respondents/defendants be injuncted from encumbering the plaint schedule properties as also forcibly evicting him from it. It appears that along with the I.A., the appellant moved an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was numbered as I.A. No.98 of 2017. The court below allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner who visited the plaint schedule properties on 28.1.2017 and filed a report which has been marked by the court below as Ext.C1. The respondents filed detailed objections against I.A. No.99 of 2017 filed by the appellant herein and also filed I.A. No.130 of 2017 seeking that the appellant herein be injuncted from trying to take forcible possession of the plaint schedule properties. Obviously, the case of the respondents in the said application was that the appellant had never been given possession of the plaint schedule property and that his attempt was to create a strategy under which he could attain possession of the property through unfair methods.

5. Before the court below the appellant produced and marked Exts. A1 to A36 in support of the allegations and the respondents herein produced Exts.B1 to B4 which were marked in such sequence. The court also marked the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 31.1.2017, as Ext.C1. After hearing the parties and after examination of the documents presented before it, the court below concluded that the case of the appellant that he was put in possession by the respondents on or after 31.4.2016 (sic) is not possible and, therefore