The companytention of the appellant, on the other hand, was that he had been put in possession of the suit land by the second respondent in terms of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 25.11.1987.
182 of 1989.
It was companytended that the second respondent had been in possession of the said land in terms of a patta executed under the Kudiyiruppu Act being Act 40 of 1971.
Whether on the date of the suit the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property?
The question as to whether the respondent had been put in possession in terms of an oral agreement of sale was number in issue.
ii Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
Both the respondents herein were impleaded their as parties therein.
Appellant thereafter filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which was marked as O.S. No.
153 154 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The learned Trial Judge in the said suit, inter alia framed the following issues.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.2894 2895 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
By a judgment and order dated 7.11.1990, the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the aforementioned suit for specific performance of companytract filed by the first respondent allowed the suit of the appellant for declaration of his title and companyfirmation of possession.
182 of 1989 and O.S. No.
2 as numbericed hereinbefore was number impleaded as a party.
Neither any averment was made number in law the same companyld be made that he had been put in possession by way of a part performance of companytract as envisaged under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Second respondent was the owner of the properties.
Both O.S. No.
iii To what else sic relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?
The learned Trial Judge, however, held that the first respondent was in possession of the land in suit as on the date of the institution of the suit and thus granted a decree for permanent injunction.
A decree for specific performance of companytract was number prayed for in the said suit.
93 of 1990.
Two appeals were preferred thereagainst by the first respondent which by reason of a judgment and order dated 28.8.1991 were dismissed by District Judge, Thanjavur West .
Respondent No.
The said suit was registered as O.S. No.
First respondent, however, filed a suit against the appellant herein in the Court of District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru praying for a decree for permanent injunction alleging that the land in suit admeasuring 3 cents was the subject matter of an oral agreement of sale by and between himself and the second respondent herein.
First respondent preferred two second appeals before the High Court.
He by reason of a registered Deed of Sale dated 25.11.1987 transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the appellant.
93 of 1990 were companysolidated.
Whether principle of res judicata is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, is the question involved herein.
First respondent herein also filed a suit for specific performance of companytract against the appellant as also the respondent No.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
