ORAL ORDER :

1] Both these appeals can be decided at this stage by this common Order.

2] Both the appeals arise from cross suits. The appellants herein, filed a suit for perpetual injunction stating that the respondents were trying to interfere their peaceful possession of the suit land without any reason. On the other hand, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance of contract, which was decreed.

3] The facts leading to the litigation are as under-

. Some time in the year 1975, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed the sale deed in favour of the appellants conveying the suit land to him. On the very day, the appellants executed an agreement for re-conveying of the land in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The agreement further contemplated that the transaction of re- conveyance would not take place before 15 years. After 15 years, when the respondent Nos.1 and 2 demanded re-conveyance, the appellants refused and so litigation started.

4] The Courts below held that the agreement was genuine and that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. Since, this aspect is factual one and since it is decided by giving cogen