1. These two second appeals, S.A.No. 1125 of 2008 and S.A.No 1009 of 2009 have been focused by the plaintiff and the defendant 3, 7, and 8 respectively animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28/2/2007 passed in A.S.No. 676 of 2005 by the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras modifying the judgment and decree dated 29/10/2004 passed by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.7383 of 1996, which was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell.

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

3. Heard both sides

4. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus:

a) The plaintiff, viz., Ganga Harinarayanan filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- To direct the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing New Door No.1, Old No.17, Venkatesa-Naicken Street, George Town, Madras 600001 more particularly described in the schedule here under given on receipt of the balance of Rs. 158750.00

- To direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the said property morefully described in the schedule here under given;

- On failure to do so, by the defendant this Honorable court may be pleased to execute and register the sake deed in favour of the plaintiff by an officer of this Honorable court; or

- Cancelling the decree dated 26/3/1990 passed by the XI Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Madras in O.S.No.3007 of 87 in favour of the 9th defendant herein as null and void.

- Consequently declare the sale deed dated 30/3/1990 pending no.68 of 90 later document no.334 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet Madras executed and registered by defendant 1 to 8 in favour of the 10th defendant in respect of the suit property as null and void.

- Restraining by a permanent injunction the 10th defendant her agents, servants and other units from transferring/alienating the suit property by sale, gift, settlement, long lease mortgage exchange or any other mode known to law pending disposal of the above case.

- And for costs. (extracted as such)

(b) Written statement was filed by D2 to D8 resisting the suit and separate written statements were filed by D9, D10 and D11 to D14, supporting the written statement of D2 to D8. Pending suit, D1 died and his legal heirs D2 to D8 are already on record.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W1 and marked Exs. A1 to A65. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked.

(d) Ultimately the trial court dismissed the suit in toto. As against which, appeal was filed, thereupon the appellate court modified the judgment and decree of the trial court to the effect that the dismissal of the suit for specific performance by the trial court was confirmed; but ordered directing the defendants concerned for return of the advance amount under the agreement to sell and also payment of compensation with interest in favour of the plaintiff.

(e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the first appellate court, these two second appeals have been filed. S.A.No 1125 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff contending that the prayers in the original suit should have been granted by the courts below in toto. Whereas S.A.No.1009 of 2009 was filed by defendants 3, 7 and 8 challenging the order passed by the first appellate court in directing the return of the advance amount as well as the payment of compensation by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

5. S.A.No. 1125 of 2008 is based on various grounds, inter alia to the effect that –

(i) The courts below failed to note that under Ex.A1, the agreement to sell dated 3/1/1987, the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.

(ii) The courts below fai