The entitlement to specific performance and the awarding of compensation or ordering the return of the advance amount must be based on the conduct of the parties and the specific prayers made in the plaint or amended plaint, as per the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the first defendant in the original suit, animadverting upon the dismissal of A.S.No.35 of 2006 on 20.11.2007 by the Principal District Judge, Trivellore, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S.No.410 of 1996. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs as against three defendants, of whom one is the Sub Registrar, Ambattur:

"(i) To direct the 1st and 2nd defendants to execute and register a sale deed for Rs.3,17,000/- to the plaintiff conveying the suit property and receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.23,328/- from court deposit after handing over the originals of documents pertaining to the suit property after securing a transfer of the suit site from the T.N.H. Board; and

(ii) To grant permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from executing and registering any sale deed on the file of the 3rd defendant or on the file of any other competent register and restraining the 3rd defendant from accepting any sale deed from the 1st and 2nd defendants for registration pertaining to the suit property.

(iii) To grant permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their men, servants or agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and

(iv) for costs."(Extracted as such)

(b) D1 and D2 filed the written statement separately resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(d) During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1/Nalliappan was examined in chief, but he was not cross examined. Whereupon, D1 filed an application seeking permission to recall P.W.1, so as to enable D1 to cross examine P.W.1 and also adduce evidence on the side of D1. The said application was dismissed and the suit was decreed.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, D1 preferred appeal. Whereupon, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal as against which the Second Appeal has been filed by D1 on various grounds suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether the Court below properly appreciated the oral documentary evidence? - placed by 1st respondent herein.

(b) Whether the Court below has properly applied the well established principles of law to find out the lacuna and validity of execution of the Sale Agreement dated 28.6.1994 for the suit property even before obtaining the Title of the said property from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by executing the Sale Deed in favour of the Appellant.

(c) Whether the Court below has properly appreciated the Doc. ie. Ex.A4 in relation to the Specific Performance clause mentioned that the Allottee namely the Appellant herein should not alienate the property within a period of 5 years as per the Sale Deed executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and superstructure should be completed on the land within 3 years period from the date of execution & registration of the Sale Deed.

(d) Whether the Court below properly appreciated the scope of cause of action for the suit in failure of the Appellant's legal right to enter into any such alleged Sale Agreement."

(extracted as such)

4. Heard both sides.

5. After hearing both sides, I have been of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law should be framed:

(1) Whether the Courts below were justified in not granting opportunity to D1 to cross examine P.W.1 and also adduce evidence and that too in a suit for specific performance and also in view of the fact that D2 did not contest the matter after filing the written statement?

(2) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the findings render