1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 84 of 1974 originally on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, now on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, is the petitioner. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against one Chockalinga Naieker arrayed as the first defendant who is none else than the brother of the second defendant, the petitioner herein. The trial court did not count enance the prayer for specific performance, but only granted a money decree creating a charge on 2/3 share of the suit property which is a house.

2. The decree was executed and the 2/3 share in the suit house was sold and it was purchased by the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff sought delivery of the property purchased and it is admitted that he took delivery of the entire house. Obviously, this was not in order. The second defendant took out an application for delivery of 1/3 share in the suit house and that was ordered. Complaining that instead of taking symbolic delivery of 1/3 share of the suit house, possession of the entire suit house has been taken, the plaintiff filed E.A. 1487 of 19