AURO ELECTRONIC COMPANY Vs. UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal has been filed by the second defendant challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below decreeing the prayer for specific performance of the contract by directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned first appellate Court also on appeal filed by the first defendant accepting the findings and conclusions reached by the trial Court for grant of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 19.1.1993 for its execution rejecting the arguments advanced by both the 1st and 2nd defendants confirmed the same. As against that the present Second Appeal was filed only by the second defendant who is the subsequent purchaser. Before proceeding further, it is not out of context to mention that the judgment debtor-D1 has not filed the Second Appeal. The present Second Appeal has been filed only by the subsequent purchaser, namely, the second defendant.

(3.) WHEN the matter was taken up, Mr.M.Sundar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant/appellant herein pleaded that the learned trial court has committed a serious error in decreeing the suit by granting the decree for specific performance without taking into account the significant point that the second defendant was the subsequent purchaser of the suit property from the first defendant. When there being a specific prayer made by the plaintiff in the plaint for setting aside the subsequent sale took place in favour of the second defendant, the trial Court merely and casually by showing casual approach to the contentions of the defendants, decreed the suit. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without any direction to cancel the concluded sale in favour of the second defendant is unknown to law and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court.