( 1 ) THE appellants are the defendants in a suit filed by the sole respondent/plaintiff in o. S. No. 106 of 1982 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Adoni for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 26-6-1978 marked as Ex. A-1 said to have been executed by the deceased-first appellant in favour of the sole plaintiff for the sale of the land of four acres out of Ac. 44-65 cents in Sy. No. 40-C.

( 2 ) THE first appellant died during the pendency of second appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 10 to 13. The appellants 2 and 3 are the brothers of the first appellant and the appellants 4 to 9 are the purchasers of the suit schedule land.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original Suit.

( 4 ) THE O. S. No. 106 of 1982 filed by the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed by the judgment and decree, dated 10-4-1987. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a. S. No. 28 of 1987 which was allowed by the lower appellate Court by its judgment and decree, dated 17-8-1991 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the defendants filed the instant Second Appeal.

( 6 ) AT the out set, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the questions of law raised in the second appeal are not at all substantial questions of law and this Court has not framed any substantial questions of law at the time of admission of the Second appeal and the same was simply admitted and therefore, it is not open to the Court to decide the Second Appeal on any questions of law framed by the defendants.

( 7 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thiagarajan and others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and others. In the said case, the High Court while admitting the appeal, framed certain substantial questions of law. But disposed of the appeal was on the points of law framed by it at the time of final hearing, ignoring the substantial questions of law framed by it at the time of admission of second appeal. The same was found fault with by the Apex Court. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the fresh set of the questions framed by the High Court at the time of final hearing cannot be termed to be a substantial question of law in contrast to mere question of law as contemplated under Section 100 c. P. C. and therefore disposing of the second Appeal on the points of law framed by it, at the time of final hearing other than the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission is bad in law.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of muthu Gounder v. Ammayee Ammap. The apex Court after extracting Section 100 of c. P. C. held that the High Court can entertain a Second Appeal only if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, an obligation is cast on the appellant to state precisely the substantial question of law involved in the case in the Memorandum of second Appeal and if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal it is required to formulate that question. The appeal has to be heard on that question though the respondent is permitted to argue that no such question is involved in the case. Nonetheless, the High Court has power to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it provided it is satisfied that the case involves such other substantial question and in that event it has to record reasons.

( 9 ) IN view of the said preliminary objections raised by the plaintiff, the substantial questions of law formulated by the defendants at the time of admission of second appeal are extracted hereunder: (I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled