In the mean time, defendants 1 to 5 filed appeal in A.S. No.
796 of 1987 before the High Court against the Judgment and decree in O.S. No.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows S.No.247 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai was filed by Veerappan, the first respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 23.1.1978.
After the decree was passed by the trial Court, the defendants through their power of attorney sold large extent of properties including the subject matter of the suit in favour of certain other persons who are the present appellants.
Both the L.P.A. and M.P. No.9570 of 1990 seeking leave to appeal were disposed of by a companymon order dated 28.3.1990.
247 of 1981 and the appellants herein being subsequent purchasers filed M.P. 3707 of 1989 to implead themselves as appellants 6 to 9 in the appeal on the ground that original appellants 1 to 5, the erstwhile owners, were trying to companylude with the first respondent.
The appellants filed L.P.A. No.
Respondents 2 to 9 were impleaded in the suit as owners of the property and it was alleged that the owners had entered into an agreement with him and as the agreement was number companyplied with, the suit was filed.
4388 of 1990 to withdraw their power of attorney in favour of one Chakrapani and Sethuraman.
4388 of 1990 by order dated 28.6.1990.
3707 of 1989 filed by the appellants herein seeking impleadment and allowed C.M.P. No.
4388 of 1990.
419 of 2001 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. A.No.
With Civil Appeal No.
The order was passed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents in the appeal.
418 of 2001 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court.
L.P.A. 113 of 1990 was allowed and with the result the appellants were impleaded as appellants 6 to 9 in the appeal and A.S. No.796 of 1987 was also directed to be disposed on merits.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed C.M.P. No.
Letters Patent Appeal was filed questioning companyrectness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge in A.S.No.
113 of 1990 against the order of dismissal of C.M.P. No 3707 of 1989 and also sought for leave to file an appeal against the order allowing C.M.P. No.
Appellants 1 to 5 filed C.M.P. No.
