The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate court to adhere to the procedure contemplated under law, including the discussion of factual evidence and the adherence to relevant procedural rules.

1. These two Second Appeals have been focused by the Defendant animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur in A.S. Nos. 131 and 132 of 2007 confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 09.08.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in O.S. No.69 of 2003 and 25 of 2004 respectively.

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Heard both sides.

The factual matrix lies within a narrow campus as under:

(a) The one and the same Plaintiff Viz., Suresh Kumar Kankariya file two Suits; the first Suit in O.S. No. 69 of 2003 seeking the following reliefs:

- for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, her men and agents from selling the suit properties to third parties.

- for costs,

and the second Suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs:

-for Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale Dated 14.12.98 by receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- by executing the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and in default on doing so by the Defendant. The Court to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and handover vacant possession of the suit property.

- for costs.

(extracted as such)

(b) Written Statement were file by the Defendant in resisting both the Suits.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed. During joint trial, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W2 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On the side of the Defendant, she examined herself as DW1 along with D.W2 and marked EXs.B1 to B5

(d) Utlimately, the Trial Court decreed both the Suits. As against which, two Appeals were filed by the Defendant for nothing but to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court confirming the common judgment and decrees of the Trial Court.

(e) Challenging and impugning the common judgment and decrees of both the Courts below, these two Second Appeals have been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that-- while filing the first Suit for bare injunction, there was even according to the Plaintiff enough cause of action for filing a suit for Specific Performance. But that was not done so and in such a case, the filing the second suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance was clearly hit by Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C. Though such a plea was taken in the Written Statement, in the second Suit for Specific Performance, yet the Trial Court had not even framed any issue based on Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. - The Oral and the documentary evidence adduced were not considered by the Appellate Court while disposing of the Appeals.

Accordingly, suggesting almost identical substantial questions of law in the memorandum of Appeals as under, these two Second Appeals have been filed.

“a. Even assuming without admitting that A-1 alleged Sale Agreement dated 14.12.1998 is true and valid and that the time fixed for performance of the contract expired on 14.12.1999, whether the suit to enforce the same filed on 25.02.2004, is sustainable in law especially since Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stipulates a period of 3 years for seeking specific performance of the contract, which commences from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the Plaintiff has notice that performance is refused?

b. When admittedly the payment under Exhibit A3-receipt is not towards the alleged Sale Agreement under Exhibit A1 dated 14.12.1998, whether the suit filed on 25.05.2004 is not barred by limitation?

c. When the burden of proof is upon the Respondent to establish the validity of the suit Sale Agreement and when he was failed to do so whether the Courts below are correct in law in granting decree as prayed for?

d. When the 1st Appellate Court is bound to render judgment in accordance with Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the impugned judgment of the Lower Appellate Court rendered in