A single appeal can challenge both the decree of a suit and a counter-claim without requiring separate appeals if filed correctly with appropriate court fees.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 in A.S. No. 22 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 in O.S. No. 432 of 2005 passed by the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, were confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their respective rankings in the plaint.

3. Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case: The first defendant was the owner of the suit schedule property. On 17.08.1997, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-, under which a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid as advance. The time stipulated for completion of the sale was three years. Subsequently, on 10.08.2000, the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as additional advance and the period for performance was extended by another three years. Thereafter, on 06.01.2003, the plaintiff paid an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- and the period of the agreement was again extended for a further period of three years.

4. As the first defendant evinced reluctance to receive the balance sale consideration and to complete the sale transaction, the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 99 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, seeking specific performance of the contract. The said suit was decreed on 17.03.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an execution petition to obtain the sale deed through Court. While the execution petition was pending, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property on 20.07.2005. Though the plaintiff lodged a police complaint, no action ensued. Consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for permanent injunction.

5. The first defendant was set ex parte in the suit. The third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. The third defendant also filed a counter-claim.

6. Brief contents of the written statement and counter-claim: The third defendant denied the alleged agreement of sale said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant and contended that the same is false. It was further contended that the decree in O.S. No. 99 of 2005 was collusively obtained by the plaintiff and the first defendant without impleading this defendant.

7. The third defendant purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1998 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and has been in possession of the suit property from the date of such purchase. Mutation was effected in the revenue records, and the third defendant constructed a house and obtained electricity service connection.

8.It was further contended that the plaintiff and the first defendant, acting in collusion and by committing fraud, obtained the decree in O.S. No. 99 of 2005. Though the plaintiff was aware of the sale in favour of the third defendant under the sale deed dated 20.04.1998, the third defendant was not arrayed as a party in O.S. No. 99 of 2005. Relying on the said decree, the plaintiff is alleged to have trespassed into the suit property on 07.09.2005 and caused damage to the building constructed by the third defendant.

9. The ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.03.2005