Today, the learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo stating that he is unable to get instructions from the appellant to proceed further and that therefore, he is reporting no instructions. This appeal was already dismissed as against the first respondent. It appears that this appeal is against the dismissal of the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.28 of 1988. The appellant is the plaintiff in the lower Court. It transpires that the appellant has entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent through the son of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the agreement of sale, it is alleged in the plaint that the first respondent herein has executed a sale deed in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. Hence, the suit has been filed seeking a decree for specific performance against the respondents 1 to 3 herein who are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The first respondent died in the year 1999 and no steps have been taken so far. Hence, by order dated 22.12.2016, the appeal itself was dismissed as abated as against the first respondent. Hence, it is impermissible to prosecute the appeal only against the other respondents after dismissal of the appeal against the first respondent. Hence, this First Appeal is dismissed as against the respondents 2 and 3 also. However, there is no order as to costs.
2.Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant reports no instructions, the copy of this judgment may also be issued to the appellant.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..