N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. These three Original Side Appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge made in C.S. No. 329 of 2010, and Tr. C.S. No. 279 of 2011, dated 17.02.2017.

2. The defendant in Tr. C.S. No. 279 of 2011 is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 214 of 2017. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 329 of 2010 is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 215 of 2017. The first defendant in C.S. No. 329 of 2010 is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 309 of 2017. Since the parties are common and the issues involved are common and the property involved is also common, a joint trial has been conducted and a common judgment has been passed covering all the issues in the above said two suits.

3. The appellant in O.S.A. No. 309 of 2017 has filed a suit in C.S. No. 69 of 2007 [which got transferred to City Civil Court and was renumbered as O.S. No. 11331/2010 and thereafter it was re-transferred to this Court and renumbered as Tr. C.S. No. 279 of 2011] claiming for the relief of Specific Performance based on two Sale Agreements dated 10.05.2006 and 21.08.2006 and for other consequential reliefs.

4. The appellant in O.S.A. Nos. 214 and 215 of 2017 filed a suit in C.S. No. 329 of 2010 claiming for the relief of delivery of possession and damages for unlawful use and occupation and for other consequential reliefs.

5. For the sake of convenience the plaintiff in Tr. C.S. No. 279 of 2011 will be referred to as the appellant and the plaintiff in C.S. No. 329 of 2010 will be referred to as the respondent.

6. The case of the appellant in brief:

The appellant and the respondent had entered into an agreement of sale on 10.05.2006 whereby the respondent agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,10,000/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Ten Thousand Only] and an advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only] was also received by the respondent. There was a Bank Loan in respect of the property availed by the respondent and the appellant under the agreement was permitted to verify the Bank documents, ascertain the balance payable towards the loan amount and settle the amount to the Bank and get the original documents released. The agreement stipulated for a period of three months for the execution of the Sale Deed by the respondent immediately after settlement of the dues to the Bank. Thereafter, a new agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 21.08.2006 wherein an additional advance amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only] was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent and the balance sale consideration payable by the appellant was fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Only]. There was a tenant who was living in the suit property who after sometime vacated the suit property during last week of August 2006. Thereafter, the respondent put the appellant in possession of the suit property on 30.08.2006 and the appellant started residing in the suit property. The appellant was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the Sale Deed executed in his favour, but however the respondent started giving Police Complaint as if the appellant has illegally occupied the suit property and ultimately the FIR came to be closed after investigation on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. Even thereafter, the appellant was repeatedly attempting to persuade the respondent to specify the date of registration of the Sale Deed and respondent was insisting that the appellant should take back what ever amount was given by him as advance and that the respondent was not interested in executing the Sale Deed. Left with no other alternative, the appellant filed a suit for Specific Performance along with other consequential reliefs against the respondent.

7. The case of the respondent in brief:

The respondent became the owner of the suit property in the year 2002 and she had purchased the suit property by taking a housing loan in a Bank. On 10.05.2006