1. This revision arises from an order in execution. A decree in a suit for specific performance is sought to be executed.

2. The facts are these: Plaintiff filed the suit O. S.21/80 to restrain the defendants in the suit from alienating the decree schedule property. When the plaintiff came to know of the fact that the property had already been sold, the suit was withdrawn and a fresh suit O. S.32 of 1980 was filed. In this suit, the plaintiff prayed for setting aside the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 4th defendant and for giving effect to the agreement which enabled the plaintiff to obtain a sale deed in his favour from defendants 1 to 3.

3. The suit was decreed. The sale deed in favour of the 4th defendant by defendants 1 to 3 was set aside. The court directed defendants 1 to 3 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. This decree of the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court.

4. The 4th defendant-revision petitioner is taking up the position that even though the sale deed in his favour stands set aside and the other defendants are obliged to execute a sale deed, he has no obligation deliver possession of the property and