In the present case, Jayakantham and others against Abaykumar, the Court of Justice adopted the Decree on the Specific Benefit to the Defendant Buyer, which was upheld by the Senior District Judge on appeal and by the Madras Supreme Court in the second appeal. However, the Supreme Court issued a contrary opinion and annulled the decree of the specific benefit. It is common for a contract to be terminated and this fact provides an incentive to take legal action in relation to the provision of services. In such cases, the failure to request the annulment of the termination would be on the basis of death, since in the absence of a reasonable exemption from the annulment of the termination, it would be presumed that the applicant has accepted it and cannot subsequently bring legal proceedings for the performance of a contract considered to have been terminated by his conduct. `Where a sale of the same immovable property takes place for the benefit of a previous and subsequent purchaser and the subsequent purchaser has paid the purchase money to the seller in the context of the transfer in his favour, an action for special provision by the previous purchaser arises, if he succeeds, the question of the correct form of the injunction in such a case arises. The practice of the courts in India was not uniform and three different ways of thinking were created. From one point of view, the correct form of the injunction is to cancel the subsequent purchase vis-à-vis the previous buyer and the direct transfer by the seller alone. A second view is that sellers and Vendee should adhere to it, while a third would limit the execution of the transfer to the subsequent buyer. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the appropriate form of the decree is to direct the specific performance of the contract between the seller and the previous buyer and to order the subsequent buyer to join the transfer to pay the title in him to the previous buyer.
he does not subscribe to a special agreement between the previous buyer and his seller; All he does is pass on his title to the previous buyer. If the applicant wishes, as a defendant, to charge certain persons as defendants, on the ground that they might be affected by the outcome of the appeal, the interest of justice is also to allow such a prayer for enforcement, so that the persons likely to be concerned have knowledge of the proceedings and can take an adequate defence; which is suitable for their sellers. The parties necessary for legal action for the concrete execution of a sales contract are not only contracting parties or their legal representatives, but also a person who bought the contractual property from the seller.- judge Shiva Kirti Singh and judge R Banumathi. In this case, the date of the agreement, i.e. 22.09.2002 and the appeal was filed on 11.02.2005. There, the Madras Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that “the plaintiff did not explain why she had to wait until 11.02.2005 to lodge the appeal for a given benefit, after learning that the defendant had not responded to the notification she had sent. . . .