The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs and few others filed separate suits for specific performance of sale agreements executed by each one of them with one L. Kumarasamy arrayed as the 4th defendant in the suits. The relief sought for in all the suits is for directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deeds on receiving the balance sale consideration and for directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit mentioned properties.

3. There were totally 35 sale deeds and 35 suits filed between 1979 and 1982. As the subject matter of all the sale agreements is forming part of the same property measuring 3 acres and 38cents and as the main controversy in issue involved in all the suits and as the documents based on which the reliefs sought for and the defendants against whom the reliefs sought for are one and the same, all the suits were jointly tried and were by common judgment and decree dated 12.1.1989 dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, 29 out of 34 plaintiffs filed appeals, which were, by common judgment dated 28.11.2007 dismissed by the lower appellate court, thereby, agreeing with the findings of the trial court and by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Challenging the same, out of 29, 15 appellants have come forward with the present second appeals before this court. The total extent of the property covered in all the present second appeals is 97cents, out of 3 acres and 38cents and all the second appeals for the reasons stated supra are hence disposed of by common judgment by this court.

4. Few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows : The suit property comprised in S.Nos.152, 157, 158 and 159/1, Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore originally belonged to one Vijayammal, who entered into a sale agreement with one Coimbatore Sri Vigneshwara House Building Society, which was formed by the plaintiffs in all the suits except in OS.676/1981 and which was represented by its Secretary L.Kumarasamy, who was arrayed as the 4th defendant. The agreement between Vijayammal and the Society represented by its Secretary was dated 25.3.1976 and the sale price agreed was Rs.20,000/- per acre and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was received as advance on the same day. In pursuance of the same, Vijayammal executed a general power of attorney in favour of Kumarasamy in his individual capacity on 16.4.1976. The said Vijayammal executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 on 24.11.1978 and three months thereafter, she died issueless. Admittedly, during the lifetime of Vijayammal, proceedings were initiated against Vijayammal under Urban Land Ceiling Act, which was in force between 3.8.1976 and 15.6.1999 and the same stood repealed thereafter. The suit sale agreements produced as Exs.A6 to A54 came to be entered into between 1977 to 1979 for different sale consideration ranging between Rs.1,500/- and above Rs.2,000/- per cent. The plaintiffs admittedly made demand and issued legal notices for execution of sale deeds on the strength of their sale agreements, after the death of Vijayammal and their claim to get the sale deeds executed was seriously disputed and denied by the settlees/defendants 1 to 3. Thereafter, the suits came to be filed seeking the reliefs against the defendants 1 to 3 as stated above.

5. The relief sought for in the suits was seriously contested by the defendants 1 to 4 on various grounds. According to the defendants, the power of attorney was valid only for 3 months and on the death of the principal, the power of attorney became unenforceable. The suit agreements executed without obtaining any exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are against the public policy and are not enforceable against the defendants 1 to 3, who are not parties to the contract and the suit agreements came into existence by an act of collusion between the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant. The defendants have also in their written