IMPORTANT POINT
It will not be a sound rule of appreciation of evidence to pick up an answer from the cross-examination of a witness and draw inference taking it in isolation. The Court must see as to how consistent the testimony of the witness is and as to how that answer fits in with the rest of the evidence and probabilities of the case.

ORDER

This appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka decreeing the suit filed by the Respondents for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit land executed by the Appellant-Defendant in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs on December 10, 1970 (Exhibit P-1)

2. It appears that the agricultural land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Survey No. 56/7 situated at Kuruvanka village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hasan District (referred to in this judgment as the suit property belonged to Respondents No. 1 and 2, who were minor and under the guardianship of Respondent No. 3. On 30th November, 1970, Respondent No. 3, as guardian of Respondents 1 and 2, sold that suit property in favour of the Appellantand, in turn, the Appellant executed an agreement for sale (reconveyance deed) in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 alleging that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the Appellant was not willing to re-convey the property in their favour, the Respondents filed the suit, O.S. No. 32 of 1973, in the court of Munsiff, Channarayapatna in 1973. The Appellant contested the suit inter alia, on the grounds : (1) that the agreement (Exh. P-1) was not executed by him and (2) that the Plaintiffs have not been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and there is no averment to that effect in the plaint. The parties went on trial on issues framed by the trial Court, of which the material issues for purposes of this appeal are as follows :

"(i) Whether, the plaintiffs prove that the 1st Defendant has executed an agreement dated 10.12.1970 agreeing to recover the suit property in favour of the Plaintiffs and the 2nd Defendant.

(ii) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as per the agreement dated 10.12.1970.

(iii) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for specific performance of the agreement dated 10.12.1970."

3. After the parties led their evidence, the trial Court held issues (i) and (ii) in favour of the Appellants but it held issue No. (iii) against them and dismissed the suit on March 29, 1975. The Appellants went on appeal before the District Judge Hassan in Regular Appeal No. 27 of 1978. The learned District Judge confirmed the findings of the trial Court on the said three issues. Indeed, the learned District Judge added that the averments in the plaint do not conform to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and thus dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal filed by the Respondents before the High Court the following substantial question of law was framed :

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below were justified in denying the relief of specific performance inspite of the averments in the plaint that the Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract."

4. Having noticed the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court, the suit notice and having extracted the relevant paragraph in the plaint, the High Court concluded that the Respondents complied with the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned District Judge confirming the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit of the Respondents on October 29, 1990. It is that judgment that is appealed against in this appeal by Special leave.

5. Ms. Meera Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has strenuously contended that the consideration of the case by the High Court has been perfunctory, the trial Court as well as the appellate court found on consideration of the evidence of PW-2 that the Respondents have not been ready and willing to perform part of the contract. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court on Issues 1 and 2 and confirmed by the first appellate court, pertained to the p