The court exercised its discretion not to decree specific performance in favor of the plaintiff due to the loan transaction, lack of continuous readiness and willingness, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiff's participation in the auction, giving up his claim for specific performance.

By this second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have impugned the order and judgment dated 17th March, 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur dismissing the Civil Appeal No.98 of 1990 filed by the appellants (legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiff). The appellants had impugned the judgment and decree passed by the Special Civil Suit No.106 of 1983 dated 30th September, 1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur dismissing the suit filed by the original plaintiff inter alia praying for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 1st February, 1983 and in the alternative for refund of the amount paid by the appellants to the defendants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under :-

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties described in this appeal are described as they were described in the proceedings before the trial court. The appellants herein were the original plaintiffs whereas the respondents were the original defendants before the trial court.

3. On or about 1st February, 1983, the plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the structure on the northern portion of F.P. No. 20, M.H. No. 1561, Daji Peth, C.T.S. No. 10429 for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that at the time of execution of the said agreement for sale, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as and by way of earnest money and thereafter paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 22nd February 1983, Rs.4,000/- on 2nd March 1983 and Rs.4,000/- on 18th April 1983 totalling to Rs.27,000/- to the defendants. On 11th April, 1983, the parties entered into a supplementary agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants handed over the possession of one of the shop premises to the plaintiff on 11th April, 1983 in part performance of the said agreement for sale.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 28th July, 1983 the parties entered into another writing by which the time to make payment by the plaintiff was extended upto 13th August, 1983. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed before the Registrar on 12th August, 1983. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the defendants did not execute the sale deed on 20th August, 1983 the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement for sale and in the alternate claimed for refund of the said amount paid by the plaintiff with interest. The defendants filed written statement and resisted the said suit filed by the plaintiff.

5. It was the case of the defendants that the suit plot was taken on lease by the deceased Ramayya and his two brothers Irayya and Rajbabbaiyya. There was a partition between Ramayya and his two brothers. It was the case of the defendants that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 had formed a joint Hindu family. The father of the plaintiff Laxmipati Narasayya Dasari was a famous politician from Eastern Region of Solapur in the Co-operative sector i.e. Dayanand Yantramag Industrial Weaving Society Ltd. situated at Municipal House No.1550 which was in existence from the year 1966.

6. The father of the plaintiff Laxmipati Narasayya Dasari was on the Board of Directors of the said society. He was the chairman or vice-chairman of the said society for a considerable period. On the date of filing suit by the plaintiff also his father was the chairman of the said society. The defendant no.2 was working as a secretary of the said society from 1974-75. Vasudev Dandi was working as the accountant of the said society and was having in his custody the cash amount of the said society. It was the case of the defendants that the said Mr. Vasudev Dandi while working as the accountant committed misappropriation of the amount of Rs.7,749.89 of the said society. The chairman and the secretary of the said society was required to sign the books of accounts as per the