Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court examined the validity and authenticity of agreements of sale and sale deeds, especially concerning the sale of 100 square yards to a subsequent purchaser. It found that the oral agreement and written agreement in favor of the subsequent purchaser were not genuine or bona fide, and the subsequent sale deed was not considered a true or valid transfer of title (!) (!) .

2. The primary agreement of sale in favor of the vendee, along with the receipt of part of the sale consideration and the vendee's continued readiness to perform her contractual obligations, supported the vendee’s claim for specific performance of the sale of the entire property, i.e., 300 square yards. However, the vendee's claim for specific performance regarding the 100 square yards sold to the subsequent purchaser was barred due to non-joinder of the subsequent purchaser within the prescribed limitation period (!) (!) .

3. The court held that the subsequent purchaser, who obtained a registered sale deed, is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance. Their absence from the proceedings, especially when the sale is not declared null and void, affects the rights of the vendee and the validity of the proceedings (!) (!) .

4. The procedural lapse of not impleading the subsequent purchaser within the statutory limitation period rendered the claim for specific performance of the sale deed in respect of the 100 square yards inadmissible. Consequently, the court directed deposit of the balance consideration for the remaining property and dismissed the suit concerning the 100 square yards sold to the subsequent purchaser (!) (!) .

5. The court also observed that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed in favor of the subsequent purchaser, without including the vendor as a party, was not sustainable. Such a suit is ineffective unless the vendor is made a party, as the vendor's rights and interests are directly affected by such proceedings (!) (!) .

6. It was emphasized that the absence of the vendor as a necessary party in proceedings to declare a sale deed null and void or to set aside a sale on grounds like fraud violates principles of natural justice and procedural law. Proper parties must be involved to ensure a fair adjudication, especially when the sale is challenged on legal or factual grounds (!) (!) .

7. The court reaffirmed that the title to the property passes from the vendor to the subsequent purchaser through a registered sale deed, which is not void but only voidable. To annul or set aside such a transfer, the subsequent purchaser must also be made a party to the proceedings. Otherwise, the transfer remains valid and binding (!) (!) .

8. The court concluded that procedural irregularities, such as not joining necessary parties within the limitation period, significantly affect the maintainability of the suit and the enforceability of the claims. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and the decrees of the lower court were upheld (!) (!) .

9. Overall, the decision underscores the importance of proper party joinder, adherence to limitation periods, and the necessity of establishing bona fide transactions for the enforcement of specific performance claims and the validity of sale deeds (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further clarification on any specific aspect.