The court applied S.12 of the Specific Relief Act and exercised its discretion to decree specific performance of the agreement with regard to 1/4th right of the 1st defendant in the property.

Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. These are the facts: The 1st defendant is the mother of defendants 2 to 4. Defendants 2 to 4 are minors. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Bhaskaran Pillai -father of defendants 2 to 4 and husband of the 1st defendant. Bhaskaran Pillai got the property under a partition deed No.6283 of 1950 of the Sub Registry Office, Chadayamangalam. Bhaskaran Pillai died intestate. So the properties devolved on defendants 1 to 4 in equal shares.

2. The defendants wanted to sell the plaint schedule properties to secure a job for the 1st defendant in the best interest of minor defendants 2 to 4. Ext Al agreement was executed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant acting for herself and for and on behalf of defendants 2 to 4. Plaintiff agreed to purchase plaint A schedule property for a price of Rs.46,700/- and paid Rs.25,000/- on 21-7-1981. Since a litigation O.P.No. 70 of 1981- was pending in regard to plaint A schedule property, the date for executing the sale deed was fixed to a date within 30 days from the disposal of O-P. No. 70 of 1981. Plaintiff was willing to purchase the property and he got ready with the balance sale consideration of Rs.21,700/-. O.P.No. 70 of 1981 was disposed of on 3-3-1983. Plaintiff was willing to purchase the property from that day onwards, viz., 3-3-1983 by paying the balance sale consideration. He has stated in the plaint that he waA always willing and continue to be willing even on the date of filing the suit to purchase the property as agreed to in the agreement, Ext.A1. The 1st defendant refused to execute the sale deed and that necessitated the institution of the suit.

3. It was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for specific performance, since the agreement was executed exerting fraud on the 1st defendant. In fact, the 1st defendant has not agreed to sell plaint A schedule property to the plaintiff. It was further contended that the 1st defendant has not received Rs.25,000/- as per Ext Al agreement. Defendants also contended that the plaintiff had no money to pay the consideration as alleged in the plaint. Defendants prayed that the court should dismiss the suit.

4. The court below raised the necessary issues in the case after examining the witnesses and admitting the documents produced by the parties. Finally, the court found that allowing the prayer for specific performance of contract for sale with respect to the 1st defendant's 1/4th right in the property will create prejudice to the minors and so "declined to decree the suit for specific performance. But in respect of all other issues, the court below found in favour of the plaintiff and so the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to get the advance amount ofRs.25,000/- paid with interest at 12% from the date of the agreement till date of suit and thereafter at 6% interest till realisation from the 1st defendant and her assets. A decree to that effect was passed. Now plaintiff appeals.

5. As regards the contentions raised by the defendants to resist the suit for specific performance, the court below found that those contentions are unsustainable in the light of the evidence adduced in the case. In fact, the court below found that the contentions raised by the defendants are totally unfounded and that there was a valid agreement - Ext A1- executed by the 1st defendant after receiving an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff. The court below also rightly found that the agreement is not binding on the minors and so as per the agreement, plaintiff cannot insist for the sale of the property belonging to the minors. In short, the agreement is valid only with respect to 1/4th share of the 1st defendant and there is absolutely no contention for the 1st defendant to resist the suit in respect of her 1/4th share. The court below refused to decree specific performance only on the ground that the transfer of the 1st defendant's 1/4th r