As per case facts, the plaintiff sought specific performance of a registered sale agreement from defendants 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of the original vendor. The plaintiff ... claimed to have paid the full consideration and taken possession, later permitting defendant 3 (his brother) to reside in the property after borrowing some money. The original agreement was lost in a cyclone. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, allowing the appeal and granting specific performance against defendants 1 and 2 and possession against defendant 3. Defendant 3, who claimed tenancy, appealed to the High Court. The question arose whether the lower appellate court's judgment was vitiated by ignoring the non-issuance of notice, failing to prove the real owner, and ignoring recitals of Exhibit A-1 and P.Ws.1 and 2's evidence. Finally, the High Court found that defendants 1 and 2 did not dispute the sale agreement or their obligation, and defendant 3's possession was permissive and his claim of tenancy was not proven. Thus, the High Court confirmed the First Appellate Court's decision, dismissing the second appeal as it found no substantial question of law for determination.