Resistance to execution of decree is a legal right.

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. No.233 of 1995 has become final. In the mean time, E.A. No.2100 of 1995 was filed by the first respondent in E.P. No.2950 of 1989 for rectification of the street name in the decree. Though in the plaint the street in which the property was situated is referred to as Subbaraya Mudali Street and the decree was in accordance with the plaint, in the sale deed that was executed on 20.9.1990, there was a mistake and the street was mentioned as Subramania Mudali Street. Therefore, the name of the street was sought to be rectified by filing this E.A. In the year 1996, Rajapandian filed E.A. No.6750 of 1996 to implead himself in the E.P. In the year 1998, Rajapandian executed a sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of one K.R Ramasamy and Kasturiammal. On 4. 1999, the impleading petition filed by Rajapandian in E.A. No.6750 of 1996 was dismissed. On 18. 2000, E.A. No.2100 of 1995 was ordered. On 112. 2000, Ramasamy and Kasturiammal executed a sale deed in favour of the present appellants. On 212. 2001, the first respondent filed E.A. No.225 of 2002 for removal of obstruction. The appellants herein filed E.A. No.2202 of 2002 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. E.A. No.225 of 2002 for removal of obstruction was ordered and E.A. No.2202 of 2002 filed under Section 47, C.P.C. was dismissed. The obstructor filed A.S. No.444 of 2004 and A.S. No.397 of 2007 against the above orders. Pending these appeals, the first respondent filed C.M.P. No.10 of 2005 for receiving the copy of the judgment in A.S. No.233 of 2005 as additional evidence. This was marked as Ex.R.1 and it was opposed by the obstructor. On 14. 2005, both the appeals were dismissed and thereafter, the two present second appeals have been filed.

3. The second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

"(1) Is the lower appellate court correct in receiving the additional evidence in the appeal which has been marked as Ex.R-1 without giving an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the evidence and if so, whether Order 41, Rules 27 to 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not directly hit the findings of the lower appellate court?

(2) Whether the lower appellate court was correct in allowing the application to receive the additional evidence and dismissing the application to reopen the case when both the applications are filed after the appeal was heard and judgment was reserved?

(3) Whether the rectification deed executed after 10 years is not barred by law of limitation?

(4) Whether the order for rectification without notice to the appellants vendor is a nullity since it violates the principles of natural justice?

(5) Whether the lower appellate court has not erred in law in dismissing the appeal holding that the wrong description of property in t