A decree for specific performance of a part of a contract can be granted under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provided the plaintiff relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by him through the default of the defendant.

C. V. N. SASTRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25-2-1980 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property, which comprises an extent of Ac. 0. 22 cents of land at the rate of Rs. 2, 100/- per cent. The agreement is purported to be executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 7, but it is actually signed by the first defendant only. The property is, admittedly, the joint family property of the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are the children of the 7th defendant. The father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and the husband of 7th defendant died intestate leaving behind him defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in the suit, besides another daughter by name Ramalingeswaramma and also his mother Saradamma, who were not impleaded as parties to the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant is the Manager of the joint family of the defendants and that he executed the suit agreement for and on behalf of the family for their family benefit and necessity, representing that a sale deed would be executed by all the sharers. At the time of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is said to have been paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant as advance and it was agreed that a registered sale deed should be executed on or before 25-4-1980. As the defendants failed to execute the sale deed inspite of a notice got issued by the plaintiff on 19-4-1980, the suit was filed for specific performance.

( 2 ) THE firstdefendant filed a written statement admitting the execution of the agreement, but denying that he was the Manager of the Joint Family or that the agreement was executed by him as Manager of the Family. He further pleaded that when the plaintiff approached him to sell the suit site, he (1st defendant) informed him that he has no right to sell the suit land, as there was a partition in which the suit land was given to the 6th defendant towards her Pasupu Kumkuma and that the 7th defendant, who is the guardian of 6th defendant, can alone represent the minor and that the plaintiff induced him to sign the agreement representing that he will convince the 7th defendant and obtain her signature on the agreement of sale later. The first defendant also denied the receipt of the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as advance from the plaintiff. He further pleaded that the agreement, which is inchoate, is unenforceable.

( 3 ) THE third defendant on one hand and the defendants-6 and 7 on the other filed separate written statements, which were adopted by the defendants 2,4 and 5, contending inter alia that the suit property was allotted to the 6th defendant towardsherpasupu-Kumkuma and marriage expenses and that the defendants-1 to 5 and 7 have no right in the same, that the 7th defendant is not at all aware of the agreement of sale and she never agreed for the same and she did not receive any advance, that there is no necessity to sell the lancj and that the alleged agreement said to have been executed by the first defendant is not valid and binding on them.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the partition pleaded by the defendants wasnot established, that the first defendant did not execute the agreement of sale (Ex. A-l) as manager of the family and that the plaintiff did not also prove that Ex. A-1 was executed for the necessity of the joint family. The trial Court, however, found that the first defendant executed Ex. A-1 and received Rs. 5,000/- by way of advance from the plaintiff. On the said findings, the trial Courtheld that the plaintiff wasnot entitled to the relief of specific performance. Though the trial Court found that the first defendant received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of advance, no decree for return of the said sum was granted to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff d id not claim any alternative relief in the plaint and observed that it is open to the plaintiff to take separate proceedings against the first defendant for return of the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document