JUDGMENT :

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

Common Prayer:- Appeal Suits filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree in OS.No.51/2011, 52/2011 and 55/2011 dated 21.01.2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode.

1. The Appeal Suit in AS.No.288/2014 is against the judgment and decree in OS.No.51/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode ; AS.No.289/2014 is against the judgment and decree made in OS.No.52/2011 on the file of the same Court and AS.No.290/2011 is against the judgment and decree made in OS.No.55/2011.

2. The appellants in the above Appeal Suits are defendants 1 and 3 in all the suits in OS.Nos.51, 52 and 55/2011. Defendants 1 and 3 have filed the above appeals against the judgments and decrees in the respective suits granting a decree for specific performance of three independent Agreements executed by appellants along with the 2nd defendant in the suit who is also the 2nd respondent in the above Appeal Suits in favour of respective plaintiffs in the three suits who are the respective 1st respondent in each of the above Appeal Suits.

3. Though the Agreements which are the subject matter of three suits are different but executed by the same set of defendants in all the three suits and the terms of Agreements are identical, the three suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment and decree after recording evidence in one suit. Since the appellants are same in all the three appeals and all the appeals are connected, the three appeal suits are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The plaintiffs in the three suits in OS.Nos.51, 52 and 55/2011 are different. However, the plaintiff in OS.No.51/2011 is the son of plaintiff in OS.No.55/2011. It is admitted that the plaintiff in OS.No.52/2011 has also some association with the other plaintiffs. The Trial Court though rendered a specific finding that the Agreements are independent, it is seen that defendants 1 to 3, have requested for a joint trial.

5. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these Appeal Suits are as follows:-

i. The 1st appellant herein is the wife of late Sri.Ramasamy. The 2nd appellant is the daughter of 1st appellant. 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is the son of 1st appellant. The subject properties of the three suits originally belonged to the joint family consisting of the father of the 2nd appellant and 2nd respondent. It is admitted that the suit properties belonged to appellants and 2nd respondent jointly. The appellants along with 2nd respondent offered to sell their properties measuring an extent of about 10 acres in favour of respective plaintiffs in the suits in OS.Nos.51, 52 and 55/2011. It is admitted that the plaintiffs in all the three suits agreed to purchase the respective portions at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent.

ii. The three Sale Agreements were executed on 31.08.2010 and the following table would show the date of Agreement, the total consideration, date of the suit as well as the extent of properties which are the subject matter of the respective sale Agreements:

OS.No. Date of Agreement Total Sale Consideration in Rs. Extent of Lands Name of the Village

51/2011 31.08.2010 84,00,000/- 2.80 acres Villarasampatti

52/2011 31.08.2010 1,00,80,000/- 3.36 acres Villarasampatti

55/2011 31.08.2010 1,23,60,000/- 4.12 acres Villarasampatti

iii. All the sale Agreements contain similar recitals.

iv. As per the suit Agreement in OS.No.51/2011, an extent of 2.80 acres of land comprised in three survey fields in Villarasampatti Village, was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.84 lakhs. On the date Agreement [31.08.2010], a sum of Rs.27 lakhs was paid as advance. A further sum of Rs.25 lakhs was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff in OS.No.51/2011 on or before 29.01.2011. The balance of consideration, namely, a sum of Rs.32 lakhs was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff on or before 30.06.2011.

v. Similarly, the total sale consideration for the Sale Agreement dated 31.