[1] The appellant/defendant who had purchased some condominium units as well as some parts of the common property from Danaharta under a statutory sale, appeals against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who had ruled that the condominium project consists of 550 parcels of condominium only and the balance of the land etc, which is referred to common property, cannot be a subject matter of sale, even when that part related to the 550 parcels which is referred to common property as well as facilities in the sale and purchase agreement ("S&P") and the deed of mutual covenant ("DMC").

[2] In essence, the only issue in this case is whether the Court should give effect to the S&P as well as the DMC. If it is enforceable, the plaintiffs/respondents in this case will not be entitled to the prayers claimed. Other issues relating to law and rights of the parties will only lead to circuitous jurisprudence if in law it is not sufficient to set aside the terms of the DMC, taking into consideration that the defendant is not in breach of the DMC terms in this case. The real issue is whether the S&P agreement as well as the DMC are binding on the parties. In th