A.S. No. 256 of 1992 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 141 of 1989 and A.S. No. 478 of 1996 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 302 of 1989.

2. O.S. No. 141 of 1989 was filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale and the suit was decreed and aggrieved by the same, defendants 2 and 3 filed the appeal. O.S. No. 302 of 1989 was filed by the appellants in A.S. Nos. 256 of 1992 for declaration and for injunction against the plaintiff/first respondent in A.S. No. 256 of 1992 and the suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed and specific performance was granted. Both the suits were tried together and common judgment was rendered and aggrieved by the judgment and decree, defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 141 of 1989 and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 302 of 1989 filed the above appeals.

3. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 141 of 1989 is as follows:-

The suit property originally belonged to the second respondent herein who was the first defendant in O.S. No. 141 of 1989 and he entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent/plaintiff on 22.9.1987 agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 95,000/= and an advance of Rs. 10,000/= was paid and the balance amount of Rs. 85,000/= was to be paid within six months viz., on or before 21.3.1988 and one week after the execution of the agreement of sale, possession was handed over to the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent was dodging the execution of the sale deed and the first respondent/plaintiff came to know that the second respondent is taking steps to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants herein and the appellants were aware of the agreement of sale of the first respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff issued notice dated 10.11.1987 to the second respondent to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale and he also waited in the Sub Registrar's Office on 18.11.1987 and as the second respondent did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale and the first respondent/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his his part of the contract and was having money with him to pay the balance sale consideration. He also prayed for injunction restraining the second respondent herein from selling the suit property to the appellants or some other persons.

4. The second respondent/first defendant in O.S. No. 141 of 1989 contested the suit stating that he never executed an agreement of sale as alleged by the plaintiff nor received Rs. 10,000/= and possession of the property was not given to him and he entered into an agreement of sale dated 5.8.1987 with the appellants agreeing for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/= and also received Rs. 10,000/= as advance from them and thereafter, on 17.11.1987 and 18.11.1987 he sold the suit properties to the appellants herein by executing registered sale deeds and possession was also given to them and the first respondent/plaintiff never met him as alleged in the plaint for execution of the sale deed and he also sent a reply to the notice sent by the first respondent/plaintiff and the first respondent/plaintiff, was also aware of the fact that the suit property was cultivated by the first appellant by taking water from his land to the suit property and the first respondent was also aware of the agreement of sale in favour of the appellants and on coming to know of the sale deed in favour of the appellants, the agreement of sale dated 22.9.1987 was forged and therefore, the first respondent was not entitled to the relief of specific performance.

5. The appellants, who are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 141 of 1989 filed separate statement stating that the first appellant was watering the suit property from the well in his property and purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/= after entering into an agr