Point of law: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, whereas under Sec. 15 of the old Act, the party seeking specific performance of a part of a contract was required to pay the entire sale consideration stipulated under the contract, under Sec. 12 of the present act, the specific performance of a part of the contract can be granted on payment of proportionate consideration, provided the plaintiff relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the contract and all right to compensation either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by him in the default of the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants.

2. The 1st respondent was the plaintiff. The 2nd respondent was the 3rd defendant.

3. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as follows:

“‘A’ SCHEDULE-Open site situate in Kurnool District Nandyal Sub-District, Nandyal town, within the municipal limits of Nandyal in Street No.2:

East :Plots of Annajirao, Pedda Siva Rao, Mhendrakar Subbarao bathroom.

West : Sreenivasanagar Road,

North: Drainage channel,

South: Musala Pedda Eswararao and others site Measurements ‘E X W : 45’ N X S : 26’

‘B’-SCHEDULE: The portion which the plaintiff had taken in division with Pothula Guramma, Wife of Veeraiah in respect of half of ‘A’ schedule property (situate in street No.2)

East : Site of Annajirao son of Pedda Eswara Rao

West : Site of Pothula Guramma

North: Drainage Channel

South: Rastha”

4. B-schedule property stated above is part of plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

5. Plaint ‘A’ schedule property belonged to the joint family property of the appellants 1 and 2 and their father Sri Chinna Eeswara Rao. There were other properties belonging to Sri Chinna Ewswara Rao and his brothers around the plaint schedule properties.

6. Both the appellants agreed to sell the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the 1st respondent and Sri Pothula Veeraiah, husband of the 2nd respondent, according to the case of the 1st respondent, on 13.02.1983 under an agreement for sale, for Rs.10,000/- and that they received Rs.1,000/- as advance on the same day thereunder. His further case is that the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid within two (02) years from the date of agreement and to obtain a regular registered sale deed at his expense.

7. It is also the case of the 1st respondent that he was in possession of this property under this agreement and earlier to it, it was leased out to him as well as Sri S.Narayana from February, 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-, where they were carrying on their carpentry workshop. It is further case of the 1st respondent that his share, which is ‘B’ schedule, was divided from the property covered by this agreement for sale, where he began to run his carpentry workshop after obtaining permission from Nandyal municipality.

8. It is also the case of the 1st respondent that Sri Pothula Veeraiah died intestate nearly 1 ½ years after entering into the afore-stated agreement for sale and thereafter his wife, namely the 2nd respondent expressed her inability to continue this contract, who executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the appellants. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that he demanded the appellants to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.4500/- towards his share and called upon them to execute a regular registered sale deed and who did not respond in spite of issuance of a legal notice dated 05.12.1988. In those circumstances, the 1st respondent claimed that he is entitled for relief of specific performance under the afore-stated contract under this agreement for sale in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, directing the appellants to execute a regular registered sale deed in his favour upon receiving the balance sale consideration or else to get the same executed in his favour through process of Court.

9. The appellants resisted the claim of the 1st respondent. They admitted execution of the agreement for sale dated 13.02.1983 and the terms set out thereunder. However, they denied that possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property was delivered either to the 1st respondent or to the husband of the 2nd respondent thereunder. They further contended that the 2nd respondent relinquished her right under this agreement by executing a deed on 20.06.1986 and that the 1st respondent also expressed his desire to abandon this agreement.

10. The appellants also contended that it is not open for the 1st respondent to split up the agreement for sale nor a suit filed on such basis is maintainable. They further contended that this suit claim stood barred by tim