1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the courts below have filed the above Second Appeals.

2. Theplaintiffs filed the suits in O.S.Nos.520 to 528/82 on the file of the 9th Asst. City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession of the suit property concerned, and for mesne profits.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the suit 'A' schedule property and the 1st defendant-co-operative society entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 19.7.76, marked as Ex.A3 for the sale of the property mentioned therein. They offered to sell 48 grounds and 234 sq.ft. in T.S.No.128, Block No. 18, Municipal door No. 1/1-l, Sabapathi Poosali Street, Iyanavaram, Chennai.23, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,92,390, and received a sum of Rs.26,102 towards advance. According to the said agreement, one year time was provided for completing the sale transaction. It is also specifically stated that time is the essence of the contract. The 1st defendant agreed to pay all taxes and other outgoings in respect of the property from the date of agreement, and possession was handed over to the 1st defendant-society. The 1st defendant did not come forward to complete the sale, but it had allotted to 2nd defendant in all the suits the 'B' schedule properties. Hence the plaintiffs have filed the above suits. It is also specifically stated in the plaint that the 1st defendant did not pay the Urban Land Tax and also the balance of sale consideration to complete the sale deed and so the agreement stood cancelled.

4. The 1st defendant contested the suit by filing separate written statement, stating that the society was put in possession of the property on the date of agreement. In spite of the best efforts taken by the society, plaintiffs have not chosen to execute the sale deed in favour of the society and its members. 1st defendant has taken steps for availing specific performance of the agreement. It is further stated that after entering into the agreement, Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act came into force, and the plaintiffs could not execute the sale deed, and they did not obtain any exemption from the Government. The delay in completing the sale was only due to the same.

5. The 2nd defendant-allottees from the 1st defendant filed written statements stating that only because the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act came into force, plaintiffs could not execute the sale deed and that the plaintiffs did not get any exemption from the competent authority to execute the sale deed. Further, plaintiffs were making promises that the clearance certificate would be produced shortly, but the same was not produced. So plaintiffs cannot seek to take possession of the suit property which was handed over to the defendants in part performance of the agreement of sale. Further, the plaintiffs could not make use of their own laches to get the property back.

6. The trial court mainly on the basis that the defendants are entitled protection under Sec.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, hereinafter called "The Act", as possession of the property was taken over by the 1st defendant in part performance of the contract, and so the suits for recovery of possession are not maintainable. On that basis the suits were dismissed. So Appeals were filed in A.S.Nos.381 to 389/86 on the file of IV Addl. City civil Court, Madras. Even the lower appellate court found that the defendants are entitled protection under Sec.53-A of the Act, and so the appellants cannot sustain the suits. On that basis lower appellate court has dismissed the suits. Hence the above Second Appeals.

7. The substantial questions of law that were formulated in these Second Appeals are:-1)Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to the benefit of Sec.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act when there is a pleading and when the 1st respondent has not done any Act in furtherance of the agreement? 2)Whether in law, acts in furtherance of the agreement should be personal acts of the