and get the Sale Deed executed. According to the plaintiff, he was put in possession. However, the second defendant in the Suit created problem by claiming title to the Suit property and he made illegal attempts to dispossess the plaintiff on 15.12.1989 and 28.12.1989. In the meanwhile, the first defendant had given permission by letter dated 23.12.1989 to put up further construction. Thereafter, the plaintiff lodged a police complaint against the second respondent and filed a Suit in O.S.No.1478/90 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee and obtained interim orders. Since the second defendant was claiming independent title, the plaintiff, issued a legal notice dated 27.02.1990 calling upon the first defendant to clear off her title as against the second defendant to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. Inspite of receiving the notice, the first defendant has not taken any steps. By notice dated 05.03.1990, a reply was given. Thereafter, on 15.10.1990, the first respondent issued a legal notice which was followed by another notice dated 26.11.1990 for a sum of Rs.16,005/- which was paid by the plaintiff towards advance. On 10.12.1990, the plaintiff issued a reply notice and filed the Suit. On 04.01.1991, the plaintiff has returned the demand draft and filed the Suit and deposited the balance sale consideration on 04.01.1991 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court decreed the Suit in respect of specific performance, however, dismissed the same in respect of permanent injunction. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Against which, the appellant / first defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal.
