P. Somarajan, J.

These two appeals are preferred against the common decree and judgment dated 19-12-1998 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode in O.S. No. 259 of 1992 and O.S. No. 694 of 1993. The main issue involved in the suit is with respect to execution of two contracts for sale exhibited as A-1 and A-5. According to the plaintiff in O.S. No.259 of 1992 (which is treated as leading case in the lower court, hence parties herein below are referred to in their status in the leading case in O.S. No. 259 of 1992), a contract for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 15-2-1989, exhibited as A-5, by which the parties have agreed to convey and transfer title over A Schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by receiving a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. It was inter alia contended by the plaintiff that at the time of execution of A-5 agreement, an amount of Rs. 70,000 was given by way of advance out of the sale consideration. The agreed period for performing Exhibit A-5 contract was up to 30-4-1989. It is thereafter that another agreement was entered into with the defendant on 9-3-1990 (produced and marked as Exhibit A-1), due to the intervention of some mediators regarding the building situated in the A Schedule property and its construction by utilizing inferior quality materials which is the subject-matter of A-5 contract. It was alleged that by the intervention of mediators, the first defendant agreed to take back the plaint A Schedule property and to give the B Schedule property, wherein he was constructing a building, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. It was also agreed that the advance amount received at the time of execution of A-5 agreement and subsequent payments which were made would be treated as part of consideration covered by Exhibit A-1 agreement for sale. It was also agreed that the improvement made by the plaintiff over the plaint A Schedule property will also be counted as part of consideration and balance sale consideration due under the agreement was fixed at Rs. 33,000. While so, the defendant issued Exhibit B-2 notice to the plaintiff demanding performance of part of contract based on Exhibit A-5 agreement for sale dated 15-2-1989 to the plaintiff for which the plaintiff has issued Exhibit A-2 reply stating the execution of subsequent agreement exhibited as Exhibit A-1 and also demanding performance of pail of contract agreed under Exhibit A-1 agreement. It is thereafter the suit in O.S.No. 259 of 1992 was instituted. Later on, the defendant instituted the connected suit in O.S. No. 694 of 1993 for getting the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000 expressing his willingness to execute and perform his part of contract by virtue of Exhibit A-5 contract for sale.

2. Both the suits put in trial jointly and on consideration of pleadings and evidence and on hearing both the parties, the lower court decreed the leading case in O.S. No. 259 of 1992 and dismissed the connected suit in O.S. No. 694 of 1993 by its judgment dated 19-12-1998, against which these two appeals were preferred by the defendants. The first defendant is the husband and the second defendant is the wife. The second defendant was impleaded in the suit by the plaintiff in tire leading case on the ground that after the issuance of Exhibit A-2 notice on 21-5-1990, tire defendant executed a deed of conveyance in favour of his wife on 24-7-1990, which is, according to the plaintiff, created with the intention to defeat the performance of part of contract as per Exhibit A-1 contract for sale.

3. So many questions are involved in the suit with respect to the validity of Exhibit A-1 agreement and its execution and also with respect to the application of Section 73 read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and also Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. It is an admitted case of both the parties that they have entered into Exhibit A-5 contract for sale, by which they agreed to convey and transfer A S