When the contracting parties are more than one, the property can only be reconveyed on the basis of the contract of the promisors. It cannot be held that the contracting promisees must reconvey to one of the promisors if the other promisors do not want to join for obtaining the specific performance of a contract.

( 1 ) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs, Sri Pronab Kumar Mukherjee and Sri Sukumar Banerjee, for specific performance of a contract for reconveyance of immovable property. The case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are the sons of late Mohonanda Banerjee by his second wife, late Gayatri Debi. The pro-defendant no. 4, Sankari Debi, is the plaintiffs' step mother, being the first wife of late Mohonanda Banerjee and the pro-defendants nos. 2 and 3 are the plaintiffs' step-brothers. During the minority of the plaintiff no. 2 and the pro-defendants nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff no. 1 for self and on behalf of the plaintiff no. 2 as the latter's guardian and the pro-defendant no. 4 for self and on behalf of the pro defendants nos. 2 and 3 as their guardian jointly sold the suit land to the principal defendant no. 1 by a registered Kobala dated 4. 11. 58 for a consideration of Rs. 1700/ -. On the same date, simultaneously with the sale, the principal defendantno. 1 executed and registered an Ekrarnama stipulating thereby a reconvey the self-same property in favour of the vendors for the same amount of consideration, if paid within Chaitra 1370 B. S. It is alleged that since the beginning of Chaitra 1370 B. S. the plaintiffs had been asking the pro-defendants nos. 2 to 4 to enforce the contract for reconveyance of the suit land and also the principal defendant no. 1 to execute and register necessary deed of reconveyance with respect to the same in term of the contract. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are not residing at their native village. The principal defendant no. 1 has managed to keep the pro-defendants nos. 2 to 4 away with false promise that after the expiry of the term of the Ekrarnama, i. e. Chaitra 1370 B. S. he would reconvey the suit property to them alone. As a result of the false promise the pro-defendants nos. 2 to 4 have been keeping away from joining with the plaintiff to claim reconveyance of the suit property. Finding no other way, the plaintiffs repeatedly requested the principal defendant no. 1 to execute and register necessary deed of reconveyance in respect of the suit property on accepting the stipulated amount entirely from them. On some pretext or other, the principal defendant no. 1 by a notice dated 6. 6. 64 to execute and register necessary deed of reconveyance at the Memari Sub-Registry Office on 27th Chaitra 1370 B. S. on accepting the stipulated amount from them. But the principal defendant no. 1 did not comply. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit upon

depositing the stipulated money in the Court. The pro-defendants nos. 2 to 4 have been impleaded as defendants as they have refused to join as plaintiffs. The principal defendant no. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement, inter alia, starting that the suit was bad for defect of parties, inasmuch as, the pro-defendants nos. 2 to 4 had not joined as plaintiffs. The agreement in favour of the plaintiffs and the pro-defendants nos. 2 to 4 was one and indivisible and hence the plaintiffs alone could sue for specific performance thereof. It was further stated that the plaintiffs having sold away their subsisting rights in the suit land to one Panchugopal Ghose on 3. 4. 64,they cannot maintain the suit for specific performance and the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. The appeal having been dismissed, the defendant no. 1 preferred the present second appeal. Both the Courts below, inter alia, held that the plaintiffs alone had right to maintain the suit for specific performance of a contract though all the promises were not made parties to the suit for specific performance as plaintiffs. It was not necessary that the two contracting sides must be arranged as plaintiffs and defendants. It had also been held by the appellate Court below that a contract could be enforced by some of the promises and if the remaining d