1. (i) The second appeal No. 1961 of 2003 is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 13.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2000 passed in O.S.No.147 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur.

(ii) The second appeal No. 1162 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 13.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2000 passed in O.S.No.288 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur.

2. The above said second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

S.A.No.1961 of 2003:

Can the defence of an agreement holder that his right under the agreement of sale would be defeated be a legal evidence in a suit for partition when the share of the parties are admitted?

S.A.No.1162 of 2005:

Without prior permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is an agreement to which the said minors are made as parties is capable of being enforced in law?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved in this matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. O.S.No.288 of 1997 has been laid by the respondent's bank for specific performance.

5. O.S.No.147 of 1997 has been laid by the appellants in S.A.No.1961 of 2003 for maintenance, creating charges, partition and permanent injunction.

6. It is not in dispute that the first appellant and the appellants 2 and 3 in S.A.No.1961 of 2003 are respectively the wife and the sons of Venkatachalam, the first appellant in S.A.No.1162 of 2005. Claiming that Venkatachalam as the kartha of the family consisting of himself and his two sons, had agree to convey the suit property in favour of the respondent's bank, for a sum of Rs.55,000/- and in connection with the same, entered into the sale agreement on 25.08.1993 and received a sum of Rs.6,000/- on the date of sale agreement and agree to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.49,000/- on or before 29.01.1994 and thereafter, even though the respondent's bank has been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction, inasmuch as, Venkatachalam had not come forward to execute the sale deed as agreed to under the sale agreement as above stated, it is stated that the respondent's bank has been necessitated to lay the suit for specific performance. Further according to the respondent's bank, with a view of avoid the execution of the sale deed, it is only at the instigation of Venkatachalam, the appellants in S.A.No.1961 of 2003 had come forward with the suit for partition. Though the appellants in S.A.No.1961 of 2003 as well as Venkatachalam had raised various pleas as regards the sale agreement dated 25.08.1983, as rightly determined by the first appellate court, on the basis of the materials placed on record, it is found that, the abovesaid sale agreement had come to be executed by Venkatachalam in favour of the respondent's bank, in respect of the property described in the original suit No. 288/97. It is found that the suit property is comprised in suit survey No.257/2 measuring 2.99 acres. The sale agreement dated 25.08.1993 is in respect of only 50 cents in the above said survey number. Even as per the case of the respondent's bank inasmuch as, out of the total extent of 2.99 acres in the said survey number, Venkatachalam and his two sons are each entitled to 1/3 share, according to the respondent's bank, the specific performance relief should be granted in their favour, from and out of the share allotted to Venkatachalam in the entire extent and hence the suit. It is also found that the respondent's bank had also sought for the alternative relief of the return of the advance amount with interest, in case their plea of specific performance is not accepted by the Court.

7. On the bas