The Second Appeal in S.A.No.846 of 2009 has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.06.2008 made in A.S.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court Ranipet, allowing the first appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 210. 2006 made in O.S.No.310 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakonam.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.310 of 2004 and defendant in the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004. The suit in O.S.No.310 of 2004 was originally numbered as R.O.S.No.86 of 1998. The suit was filed against the respondents herein for specific performance, seeking a decree directing the defendants to execute the sale deed, as per the alleged agreement for sale, dated 17.01.1983 and if the defendants fail to execute the sale deed, to execute the sale deed through an officer of the Court below.

3. Second Appeal in S.A.No.859 of 2009 has been preferred by the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004.The suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004 was filed by the second respondent, K.Ramachandra Naidu against the appellant herein, seeking declaration of title, delivery of possession, damages for use and occupation and other consequential relief.

4. It is seen that the trial court, by a common Judgment, dated 210. 2006 decreed the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004 as prayed for and granted two months time for the appellant herein to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the respondent / decree-holder. The suit in O.S.No.310 of 2004 was dismissed without costs. The suit in O.S.No.47 of 1998, O.S.No.195 of 1998 and O.S.No.43 of 1999 was also dismissed by the common Judgment. Aggrieved by which, the appellant herein preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.61/07,62/07,63/07, 64/07 and 31/07.

5. The first appellate court by a common Judgment, dated 26.06.2008, confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below and dismissed all the appeals preferred by the appellant herein. Aggrieved by which, the Second Appeals have been preferred.

6. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an endorsement that the appellant is not pressing the appeals in S.A.Nos.847/09,848/09 and 849/09. In view of the same, the said Second Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

7. The appellant herein is challenging only the concurrent Judgment rendered by the Courts below only in A.S.No.61/07, relating to S.A.No.846/09 and A.S.No.31/07 relating to S.A.No.850/09.

8. In thegrounds of both the second appeals, the appellant has raised the following questions as substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the appellant has established his right to claim specific relief under the sale agreement, dated 17.01.1983 (Ex.A.1) in terms of the Specific Relief Act ?

2. Whether both the courts right in rejecting the claim of the appellant for possession from 1983, has not the appellant proved title by adverse possession ?

3. Whether or not the purchaser of suit property by the respondents is hit by the Doctrine of lispendens ?

4. Whether both the courts right in relying upon the photo copies only to prove the possession of the respondents in the absence of any independent evidence to prove the same by the respondents ?

9. In the plaint relating to the suit in O.S.No.310 of 2004, the appellant herein as plaintiff has stated that the suit property belonged to the first respondent, Krishnalal Jain, who entered into an agreement of a sale with the appellant / plaintiff for the sale of the the property for the consideration of Rs.38,000/-, as per the agreement of sale, dated 17.01.1983. He has further stated that the first respondent had executed a registered power of attorney deed in his favour with regard to the said property, however, on 11.06.1984, the appellant / plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale, by virtue of the power of attorney deed with one Jeyavelu Mudaliar for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and the appellant had also