An oral agreement is valid for specific performance if made with free consent and lawful consideration, separate causes of action do not bar subsequent suits.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The first defendant is before this Court on appeal.

2. S.A.(MD)No.147 of 2019 is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2018 in A.S.No.15 of 2017, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016 in O.S.No.46 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

3. S.A.(MD)No.148 of 2019 is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2018 in A.S.No.51 of 2017, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016 in O.S.No.46 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

4. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree, the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property belongs to the first defendant. The plaintiff is related to the first defendant. The first defendant was doing business at Chennai. On many occasions where the first defendant required financial assistance, the plaintiff helped by giving money. The first defendant had availed credit facility with the second defendant bank by creating mortgage over his properties. The house in the suit property became old and dilapidated. Since the building got damaged, the first defendant sought permission from the second defendant on 23.01.2002 to sell the same. The bank had appointed an Engineer to value the property. As per the valuation report, the value for the suit property was fixed at Rs.99,000/-. The plaintiff being the close relative of the first defendant, he was persuaded to help him. No one else was willing to purchase the suit property from the first defendant. The first defendant took the plaintiff to the bank. One Swaminathan – Manager of the bank informed that he would get release of the suit house from the bank on payment of money as fixed by the valuer. Pursuant to several visits to the bank by the plaintiff along with the first defendant, on 10.10.2002, there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant to purchase the suit property for the valued amount of Rs.99,000/-. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the property for Rs.99,000/-. Based on the agreement, the plaintiff had paid the entire amount to the bank and requested the defendants to release the property and complete the sale. The plaintiff had withdrawn the amount from his bank account having SBI A/c No.6677, which was remitted to the loan account of the first defendant in the second defendant bank for releasing the suit property. In view of the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, he did not insist upon a written agreement. The suit property is nearer to the plaintiff's property. After the payments were made, the first defendant had also written a letter to the bank on 20.09.2003 to give approval to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff. Again letter was sent on 29.03.2004 by the first defendant to the bank seeking reason as to why permission was not yet granted for transfer of the property. Further the bank filed a suit in O.S.No. 110 of 2006 for recovery of the balance amount from the first defendant. He was informed that the Head Office did not agree for releasing the suit property. As such, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2006 of 2010 to implead himself as a party to