( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the 1st respondent in each appeal for specific performance of a contract dated 17/06/1956 entered into in his favour by original defendant I for sale of properties described In Schedules a and b. The present appellant Valiammal was defendant 2 and she claimed that the original defendant I, now described as the vendor, had entered into a contract Ex. A-l on 2/05/1956 for sale of the property mentioned in Schedule b. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the high court, the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed and a decree for specific performance was granted. Present two appeals are filed by a consolidated certificate under Article 133 (l) (a) and (a) of the Constitution of India (as these stood at the relevant time ). One appeal is by the original defendant 2 and another appeal is by the original defendant I, the vendor.

( 2 ) THE contentions raised in both these appeals related merely to questions of fact depending upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

( 3 ) MR. Natesan, learned counsel for the original defendant 2 Valiammal urged that the High court was in error in holding that the agreement in her favour was anti-dated. In order to substantiate this contention Mr. Natesan took us through both documentary and oral evidence. Having examined the evidence as read by him in the light of the comments made by the High court we are satisfied that the High court recorded a correct finding thatthe agreement in favour of original defendant 3 was antedated. There are some tell-tale circumstances unerringly leading to this conclusion but one of which we must take note of is an interpolation of a material nature in ex. B-l, styled as counterpart agreement. Ex. A-l being the contract for sale entered into by the vendor-defendant 1 in favour of the present respondent 2, the original plaintiff. This interpolation is indisputably established by a tell-tale circumstance that the interpolated portion is absent in Ex. A-l which was entered Into with the original plaintiff. The Interpolation Is motivated inasmuch as when translated it meant that the plaintiff who seeks. specific performance of his contract was aware of and had the knowledge of an agreement which the vendor appears to have entered into with original defendant 2. There was hardly any explanation about the interpolation offered to the High court and in fact none was forthcoming to us also. A motivated interpolation in a solemn document completely vitiates the document. And we call it a motivated interpolation because the price of b, Schedule properties offered by defendant 2 who resists now the specific performance in favour of the original plaintiff is less than what is offered by the original plaintiff In the agreement Ex. A-1. Common course of human conduct has uptil now Indicated to us that solemn agreements have been violated when more price is offered, but here is a breach attempted for a lesser price and by a fairly crude attempt which stares in the face. Apart from many others, this one circumstance clearly indicates that the high court was fully justified in recording the conclusion that the agreement in favour of original defendant 2 was certainly ante-dated or at any rate was not one good enough to deny specific performance to the original plaintiff. Therefore the appeal preferred by the original defendant 2 must fail on this ground alone.

( 4 ) THERE Is then the appeal by the original vendor. His grievance is that whatever be his conduct, on the material on record the plaintiff, who seeks Specific performance, was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore he is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. Vendors appeal is limited to Schedule a. properties alone. A list of dates supplied to us would indicate that the suit for specific performance was filed six days before the date fixed fo