The respondents are still waiting to realise the fruits of a decree for specific performance obtained in the year 1988.

2. O.S. No.3393 of 1985 was filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of the sale deed dated 12. 1982 against one Suseela. On 12. 1988, the suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent filed E.P. No.2950 of 1989 for execution of the sale deed. In the year 1990, the Court executed the sale deed in favour of the first respondent. On 112. 1992, the judgment debtors in

O.S. No.3393 of 1985, namely Suseela and others, executed a sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of one Rajapandian. The said Rajapandian filed O.S. No.1560 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the first respondent. The suit was decreed on 29. 1995. Against that, the first respondent filed A.S. No.233 of 1995. The appeal was allowed on 21. 1996, wherein it was held that the first respondent had validly obtained a decree in respect of the suit property and that Rajapandian cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, since the sale in his favour is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. This decree in A.S.