1. These second appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs against the common Judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in A.S.Nos.30 of 1998, 31 of 1998 and 32 of 1998 dated 30.09.1999 confirming the common judgments and decrees passed in O.S.Nos.115 of 1996, 116 of 1996 and 117 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur dated 27.01.1998.

2. The appellants herein have filed three suits in O.S.Nos.115 of 1996, 116 of 1996 and 117 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur, for specific performance of the sale agreements dated 07.10.1988. The learned Sub-Judge, by the common judgment dated 27.01.1998, has dismissed the said suits with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the appeals in A.S.Nos.30 of 1998, 31 of 98 and 32 of 98 on the file of the First Additional District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. The learned First Additional District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, by the common judgment dated 30.09.1999, has dismissed the said appeals confirming the common judgments and decrees passed by the trial court. However, he directed the parties to bear their respective costs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the trial court.

3. Since in all the three suits, same kind of averments made in the plaints, for the purpose of disposal of these second appeals, the averments made in the plaints, are summarized herein as follows:

The suit properties belong to the defendants. The defendants had agreed to sell the respective suit properties to the plaintiffs and entered into separate sale agreements on 07.10.1988 and Rs.43,000/- was fixed as sale consideration per acre. In pursuance of the said agreements, the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.5000/- as advance to each of the defendants. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration should be paid within eleven months and that the plaintiffs have to obtain sale deeds. The second plaintiff is the Educational and Charitable Trust. On behalf of the second plaintiff, as a Principal of the Engineering College, entered into the aforesaid sale agreement with the defendants. On the date of the sale agreement, the defendants delivered possession of their properties to the first plaintiff.

(b) The first plaintiff as per the sale agreements, was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and called the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. But the defendants postponing the same under some pretext or other. Hence, the first plaintiff through the second plaintiff issued a notice on 22.07.1992 through their lawyer calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deeds. Though the defendants had received the said notice on 25.07.1992, they neither come forward to comply with the said notice nor they sent any reply. Hence, the plaintiffs constrained to file the above suits for the relief of specific performance.

4. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants in the aforesaid suits are summarized as follows:

(a) It is false to say that the defendants executed the sale agreement in favour of the first plaintiff on 07.10.1988. It is also false to state that the defendants agreed to sell the suit properties at the rate of Rs.43000/- per acre and received a sum of Rs.5000/- as advance by each of the defendants. It is also false to state that the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration within a period of eleven months and get executed the sale deed. It is also false to state that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and only the defendants evaded to perform their contract. It is true that the defendants had received lawyer's notice, but they ignored the same as it was black mailing notice belatedly issued and with a view to pressurize the defendants. It