Issue of jurisdiction ought to have been raised before the trial court.

Second appeals filed against the judgments and decrees dated 15.4.2004 in A.S.Nos.392 and 393 of 2003 respectively on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1648 of 1997 are as follows:- The plaintiff in O.S.No.1648 of 1997 is the appellant in both the appeals on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The issue related to the relief of specific performance, this court deals with that suit whose adjudication will answer the relief sought for by the second defendant, the purchaser in his suit. The plaintiff in the above suit sought two reliefs namely;

(1) Based on the strength of execution of Ex.A1 that was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 4.3.1974 wherein the plaintiff sought for the relief of specific performance.

(2) Since the plaintiff claims that she is in possession by virtue of the said agreement dated 4.3.1974, she also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 4.3.1974 wherein the first defendant accepted to sell the properties for a valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/- and in furtherance of that acceptance, she paid a sum of Rs.5000/- as advance and the balance of the said consideration would be paid in instalments. It is stated that under housing scheme, the Corporation of Madras allotted the house site to the husband of the first defendant, wherein the husband of the first defendant was employed in the Corporation of Madras. Under the said scheme, Ex.A1 is a lease-cum-sale agreement which was executed by Sundaram, the husband of the first defendant and according to the said agreement, on payment of dues by instalments towards sale proceeds, a sale deed was executed by the Corporation of Madras. The plaintiff claims that she discharged some debts and also paid the instalments to the Corporation of Madras for over six years and the balance amount has already been deposited by the first defendant in that court deposit at the time of institution of the said suit. Since the first defendant failed to convey the property to the plaintiff even after the sale deed had been executed by the Corporation of Madras, the plaintiff approached this court for seeking the relief of specific performance based on the said agreement dated 4.3.1974. It is stated by the plaintiff that the second defendant purchased the said property from the first defendant with full knowledge on the earlier agreement with the plaintiff and thereby he ignored the said earlier agreement. Since the second defendant attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff approached the court for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The second defendant in this case has questioned the enforcibility of the said sale agreement and he claims that he is a bonafide purchaser. According to him, he did not know about the alleged agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Further the second defendant had contended that since the plaintiff denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the second defendant and herself, the second defendant treated the plaintiff as a trespasser and in that circumstances, the second defendant sought for the relief of declaration and delivery of possession by way of filing a separate suit.

5. It is contended by the first defendant that she never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and in fact she executed only a tenancy agreement and taking advantage of the first defendant's helpless situation and position and particularly after the death of the first defendant, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff also aware of the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement under Ex.A1 with the Corporation of Madras, which was entered into between the husband of the first defendant and the Corporation of Madras, wherein th