Judgment :- 1. Both the above appeals were admitted on 17/03/2009 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Courts below fell in error in ignoring the fact that the defendants had set up a title in the third person while granting protection to them under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act? (ii) Whether the Courts below fell in error in ignoring the fact that the defendants had shown their willingness to purchase the property @ Rs.20/- per square metre when the agreement stipulated the rate @ Rs.60/-per square metre and when the defendants raised the plea that they are ready to purchase the property only if the plaintiff had a marketable title? (iii) Whether the Courts below fell in error in holding that suit was barred by limitation on the ground that the suit was one for demolition of the structure when essentially, the suit was one for possession? 2. I have heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri P.A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. During the course of the hearing of the above appeal it was pointed out by Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of the above appeal the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to rely upon the judgment and decree dated 17/04/2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.147/2011, which according to him was in respect of the disputed property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the findings in the said judgment conclusively establish the ownership of the appellants over the disputed property. 4. Shri P.A. Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondents points out that the stand of the respondents with regard to the title of the appellants was essentially on the ground that there was no conclusive adjudication of the dispute in respect of the ownership of the appellants. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the said judgment will have a material bearing to decide the matter in controversy. Both the Counsel, as such, pointed out that to examine the relevancy or otherwise of the said judgment, it would be appropriate to direct that the Lower Appellate Court to decide both the appeals preferred by the appellants afresh in the light of the findings in the said judgment. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 5. Both the Counsel, as such, pointed out that to examine the relevancy or otherwise of the said judgment, it would be appropriate to direct that the Lower Appellate Court to decide both the appeals preferred by the appellants afresh in the light of the findings in the said judgment. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 5. In view of the above, by consent, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The impugned judgments dated 31/07/2007 in Second Appeals No.29/2008 and 30/2008 are quashed and set aside. (ii) Regular Civil Appeal No.126 of 2008 and Regular Civil Appeal No.127 of 2005 are restored to the file of the learned Lower Appellate Court. (iii) The Lower Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the said appeals afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. (iv) Needless to say, all the contentions of the both the parties are left open. (v) Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court on 2/03/2015 at 2:30 p.m.