1. The plaintiff, claiming to be the tenant of the property measuring 57 feet east to west and 35 feet north to south, opted to purchase the property in accordance with the offer given by The Commissioner of HR & CE Department, the second defendant, and having failed in his attempt, approached the Court by filing pauper O.P. in O.P. No.29 of 1985 seeking direction to the defendants to execute and register the sale deed.

2. The suit was decreed, as against which the first defendant filed the first appeal in A.S.No.30 of 1998. The appeal was dismissed, thereby the trial court's judgment was confirmed. As against the dismissal, second appeal has been filed. The following substantial questions of law have been raised:-

"1. Whether the Courts below were right in not dismissing the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.Code, which goes to the root of the matter?

2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff had a right to approach the Courts below for specific performance in view of the admitted allotment of the land by the HR & CE Dept. to one Subramani?

3. Whether the suit for specific performance is not liable to be dismissed in the absence of pleadings and evidence regardi