6. The 1981 O.S.Nos.704 and 707 defendants, who were offended, filed objections No. 646 and 647 of 1987 before the High Court. Through its judgment and order, which are currently on appeal, the High Court dismissed both Appeal 646 and 647 of 1987. On the basis of counsel`s intervention, the following points were retained for consideration:- a) The late S.N. Ponnuswamy Nadar entered into a sale agreement with Kuppathal and Nanjammal on 16.7.80, defendants 1 and 2, for the purchase of the property and in that action, the accused subsequently entered into a sale agreement with 8. The issue of the sale was agreed to 1.19,500/- Rs. and it was agreed that the sale would be completed within 4 months of the date of the agreement. The second case, which is part of the first case, was delivered in partial execution of the contract on 7.11.1980 to the first applicant S.N.
Ponnuswamy Nadar. At the time of the agreement, an advance of 5,000 UK was paid. … The benefit according to the purchase agreement in favor of the plaintiff and changed the judgment that prompted the defendant 1-4, the possession and pleasure of the timing of the action… Executing the purchase agreement in favour of respondent 1-applicant with respect to the timing quality of the application. In addition, it made the permanent omission order against the accused… Execution with regard to the timing of the ownership procedure on the basis of the sale agreement of 25-12-1983 (Annex P-1) and also for the granting of a permanent injunction which was issued by the defendant of… On the basis of the aforementioned fundamental principle of the law relating to the facilitation of the specific performance of a contract, the Supreme Court of India recently annulled, in a Jayakantham decision, among other things against Abaykumar, the specific enforcement decree of an agreement to sell a property and granted financial compensation to the buyer (respondent) instead of the exemption from the specific benefit. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 made a written statement arguing that Ponnuswamy Nadar is a real estate agent and speculator and is a neighbour of the defendant, and he is also aware of the sale agreement that defendants 1 and 2 entered into with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979. Subsequently, the first applicant entered into the sale agreement in his favour, as if the defendants were willing to sell him the title of appeal and, therefore, the agreement of 16.7.1980, contemplated by the first applicant for the filing of the application for the special benefit, was not a genuine document, and the defendants 1 and 2 entered into a sale agreement with the 4th defendant on 27.3.1979, which was previously, and therefore cannot argue the first remedy.
… in the disputed property are installed. I heard advice for the parties and went through the file. The validity of the sales contract of 14.3.2011 seems to be the subject of… the petitioner was fraudulently made. Qualified lawyer for the petitioner claims that, in fact, the complainants signed a sale agreement in… Case of civil action, since the petitioner has already brought an action with a view to the concrete execution of the sale contract of 14.3.2011. At this point, it will be premature to become a… In addition, under the sale agreement of 27.3.1979 between the defendants 1 to 5 and the 6th defendant, two sales appeasements of 22.10.1981 and the exchange frames of 19.10.1981 and 22.10.1981 were executed.