Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.11.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 124/1994 (Mohd. Ahmad v. Karamat Hussain and others).

2. Original Suit No. 993/1985 (Mohd. Aslam v. Karamat Hussain and others) was filed by sole plaintiff Mohd. Ahmad with averment that he is owner in possession of disputed property of plot No. 234/1 of village Maheva Patti, Uparhar. Defendants have no right, title or interest in this property. They are expressing that plaintiff had done any agreement to sell in the year 1980 in favour of defendant No. -1 for sale of this property and they are trying to interfere in possession of plaintiff over it, therefore the plaintiff had filed suit against defendants from restraining them from interfering in possession of plaintiff’s property.

3. In their written-statement filed in O.S. No. 993/1985, defendants pleaded that plaintiff had executed a registered agreement to sell dated 3.10.1980 for sale of his property and received Rs. 20,000/- as advance consideration, but when he has not executed sale-deed in terms of said contract for sale then defendants had given him notice for specific performance of contract. Plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform their part of contract dated 3,.10.1980, but defendant had not executed sale-deed and filed suit on incorrect facts. Then plaintiff’s suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. In another Suit No. 491/1985 (Smt. Salaha Begum v. Mohd Ahmad) was filed by three plaintiffs (who were defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 of O.S. No. 993/1985) for specific performance of contract for sale dated 3.10.1980/15.10.1980. In this plaint their pleading was same as their written-statement case in O.S. No. 993/1985. They pleaded that defendant Mohd. Ahmad had received advance consideration and executed registered agreement to sell for his property, but had not executed sale-deed, then after serving him notice for specific performance, they had filed suit for specific performance. They are and had been ready and willing to perform their part of contract.

5. In written statement of O.S. No 491/1985, the defendants Mohd. Ahmad had filed written statement denying any execution of registered agreement to sell. He further pleaded that defendant is ailing for some time and if plaintiffs of O.S. No. 491/1985 had get executed any deed from him or got signed any document then it is not binding on him. Plaintiff suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Since the disputed property in both the original suits No. 993/1985 and 491/1985 was same and contesting parties were also the same, therefore both these suits were consolidated. Trial Court had framed total 9 issues (4 issues for O.S. No. 993/1985 and, 5 issues for O.S. No. 491/1985) and accepted evidences of the parties then after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Court of Vth Additional Munsiff, Allahabad had dismissed the O.S. No. 993/1985, Mohd Ahmad v. Smt. Salaha Begum and others. By the same judgment, the trial Court had decreed the O.S. No. 491/1985, Smt. Salaha Begum v. Mohd Ahmad, instituted for relief of specific performance of contract and directed the defendant of this suit Mohd. Ahmad (present appellant) to execute registered sale-deed of disputed property in favour of plaintiff of O.S. No. 491/1985 and also gave direction that if due to any reason cause of action of sale-deed becomes not possible then plaintiffs of this suit will be entitled to receive back the advance consideration of Rs. 20,000/- with compound interest at the rate of 17%.

7. Plaintiff of the Original Suit No. 993/1985 and defendants of Original Suit No. 491/1985, Mohd. Ahmad had filed two Civil Appeals against the judgment dated 25.3.1994 passed by trial Court in aforesaid suits. Civil Appeal No. 123/1994 (Mohd. Ahmad v. Karamat Hussain and others) was filed against judgment of dismissal of OS No. 993/1985. Civil Appeal No. 124/1994 (Mohd.