G. Jayachandran, J.

The subject matter of these two second appeals is in respect of 4.30 acres of land out of 17.59 acre in R.S.No. 46 of Puthupettai Village, Namagiri Pettai, Salem District. Two suits for specific performance, one in O.S.No. 139 of 1983 by Periyannan and another suit in O.S.No. 140 of 1983 by Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder were filed against the vendor Natesa Pandaram pleading that the said Natesa Pandaran executed two sale agreements dated 29.04.1982 one in favour of Periyannan, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 139 of 1983 in respect of 2.15 acres and another in favour of Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 140 of 1983 in respect of another 2.15 acres of land.

2. In respect of the very same property a counter claim was laid by one Palanisamy and Ramasamy based on the specific performance decree passed in O.S.No. 322 of 1985 on the file of the Sub court, Namakkal.

3. The litigation over title and possession between the parties began with filing of specific performance suit in O.S.No. 139 of 1983 by Periyannan and O.S.No. 140 of 1983 by Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder against Natesa Pandaram on the averments that the suit property which was originally of larger extent consisting of 17.59 acres was divided into 2 portions among the father and son namely Natesa Pandaram and Suyamprakasham. The said Natesa Pandaram was allotted to the western portion and his son Syuamprakasham was allotted in the eastern portion as per the partition deed 30.06.1966. From out of his share, the said Natesa Pandaram agreed to sell 2.15 acres of land to Periyannan on 29.04.1982 and another 2.15 acres of land to Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder on the very same day. Both the agreements were registered. Under the said agreements, the time for completion of contract was fixed as six months for the sale consideration of Rs.31,500/- out of which advance of Rs. 2,500/- was received by Natesa Pandaram. In both sale agreements the terms and conditions are identical.

4. However, it is the case of the purchasers that by the end of six months, the contract could not be completed. Hence a fresh agreement was executed by Natesa Pandaram in favour of Periyannan and Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder separately on 29.10.1982. As per the second agreement, towards sale consideration of Rs.31,500/-, the said Natesa Pandaram has received Rs.15,000/- as advance, and time for completion for contract was fixed as one year.

5. After notice, two suits were filed one by Periyannan and another by Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder for specific performance and both the suits were decreed ex parte on 04.11.1988. Thereafter, third suit was filed jointly by Periyannan and Ponnan @ Ramasamy Gounder for injunction in O.S.No. 208 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram and re-numbered as O.S.No. 472 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal against Palanisamy and Ramasamy, those who are claiming rival title over the suit property based on the decree obtained by them in the specific performance suit filed by them in O.S.No. 322 of 1985.

6. Essential facts relating to the title dispute of the suit property are as under :-

(i) The suit property is part of larger extent of property admittedly owned by Natesa Pandaram family. On 30.06.1966 a partition has been effected between Natesa Pandaram and his son Suyamprakasham and the land covering the property in dispute was admittedly allotted to Natesa Pandaram.

(ii) When all the three suits in O.S.Nos. 139 and 140 of 1983 and 472 of 1994 were taken up for joint trail, the trial Court examined witnesses in O.S.No. 139 of 1983 filed by Periyannan and parties were described as per the ranking in that suit. The exhibits are common to all the suits and the facts are also interconnected. For the sake of convenience, instead of referring the cases separately, unless it is warranted, the parties and documents are referred as found in O.S.No.139 of 1983 where-ever required.

(iii) Based on the partition deed, Natesa Pandaram has initially e