C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The defendants/legal heirs of the defendants in O.S.No.364 of 1983, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, along with the subsequent purchasers, are the appellants.

2. O.S.No.364 of 1983 had been filed by the respondents for a judgment and decree declaring that they are entitled to the suit properties absolutely and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and for a declaration that four sale deeds, all dated 03.02.1983 in favour of the 2-5 defendants respectively, in relation to the suit properties are not binding on them and for a direction against the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

3. The suit and in fact the entire litigations have been meandering in circles without going nowhere for the past more than three decades. Originally, a judgment was delivered in O.S.No.364 of 1983 on 16.04.1991. That judgment was passed, since the plaintiffs did not come forward to cross examine the witnesses on the side of the defendants. The learned Additional District Munsif, exercised his right to deliver judgment in such circumstances. That judgment was subsequently set aside and the matter was again remitted back to the learned Additional District Munsif. After further hearing, a judgment was passed on 24.04.1992. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.28 of 1993, before the District Court, Madurai. By judgment and decree dated 25.07.1994, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed. As against that judgment, the defendants/legal heirs of the defendants filed the second appeal in S.A.No.18 of 1995.

4. The second appeal was transferred to the Madurai Bench. Arguments were heard and judgment was delivered on 18.09.2007, dismissing the second appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. However, an application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 was filed seeking permission to re-hear the appeal. It was contended that the names of counsels for 2-3 appellants were not printed in the cause list. That application was allowed by order dated 13.11.2016. That order was challenged in S.L.P.No.9962 of 2017 by the present respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the suit. The Honourable Supreme Court, by order dated 10.04.2017, remitted the matter back to the High Court to dispose of the second appeal within a period of six months from date of the order, namely, 10.04.2017. In the meanwhile, the first, second and fifth appellants unfortunately died. The legal heirs of deceased first appellant were brought on record as appellants 7-14. The legal heirs of the deceased second appellant were brought on record as appellants 15 and 16. One of the legal heirs was already on record as 13th appellant. The legal heirs of the deceased fifth appellant was brought on record as 6th appellant.

5. On 10.08.2018, the 4th and 6th appellants filed separate memos, stating that they have come to understand that they have no legal right or claim over the suit property and consequently, they have decided not to continue to prosecute the second appeal. These memos were recorded and the appeal also dismissed insofar as the 4th and 6th appellants were concerned, by order dated 11.08.2017.

6. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court is vitiated by its failure to consider the entire evidence on record and apply the correct principles of law"

7. Thereafter, on 11.04.2007, during hearing of the arguments, it was felt necessary to formulate an additional substantial question of law, which is as follows:

"Whether the learned District Judge was right in holding Ex-A3 as sham and nominal when no circumstance had been established for the purpose of such transaction especially in favour of a total stranger unrelated