HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

1. Second appeal is by the defendant in O.S. 474 of 1994 who had filed a suit in O.S. 198 of 1991 before the trial court at Anekal for specific performance which had been decreed and ultimately in the appeals filed by the plaintiff as well as third party purchaser, both the appeals were dismissed. However, it appears, liberty is given to the third party purchaser to file an independent suit.

2. Be that as it may, in the suit filed against the order of the first appellate court by the plaintiff which is concluded, decree was ordered in favour of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, plaintiff/third party purchaser in another proceedings in view of the liberty said to have been given, filed O.S. 494 of 1994 against the plaintiff in O.S. 198 of 1991 (1st defendant herein) wherein he succeeded. However, in the appeal filed before the lower appellate court, the appeal came to be dismissed against which, parties are before this Court.

3. According to the original plaintiff who was the agreement holder in the year 1984 against the vendor, for specific performance of the same property filed a suit in the year 1991. Of course, according to the defendant, in the said suit