1. The earlier appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 68 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore. The later appeal is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 189 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore. O.S.No. 189 of 1991 was originally pending as O.S.No. 3002 of 1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras and on being transferred it came to be taken on the file by the Subordinate Court, Tiruvellore and renumbered as referred to above. In this jud gment the substantive parties to the appeals would hereinafter be referred to as ‘vendors’ and ‘buyer’. The buyer is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 189 of 1991. It is a suit for specific performance. The vendors, numbering five, are the defendants in that suit. That suit was dismissed on merits. The vendors are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 68 of 1987. The buyer is the first defendant in that suit and his tenant is the second defendant in that suit. That was a suit laid by the vendors for declaration that the fir st defendant committed breach of contract of sale and therefore he had lost his right to buy the suit property; for possession and for mesne profits, past and future. Th