The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of an agreement to sell immovable property against one co-owner, the conditions for specific performance under S.12 of the Specific Relief Act, and the principle of divisibility of the contract.

The main aspect to be considered in this appeal is whether an agreement to sell immovable property by three co-owners can be specifically enforced against oneof them in respect of his share.

2. Plaintiff in O.S.213/85 before Sub Court, Palghat is the appellant. The suit was filed by him against the defendant seeking specific performance of an agreement executed by defendant and his (wo brothers on 12-8-1982 by which they agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,45,200/- of which an amount of Rs.20, 000/- was received on the date of the agreement. Major portion of the property was also put in possession of the plaintiff, and the executants undertook to evict the tencnt in occupation of the buildings. The sale was agreed to be completed by 30th of August 1983. A further sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was also paid. In the meanwhile one Achuth Bhaskar filed a suit against defendant and his brothers as O.S.190/83 seeking to restrain them from assigning the property to plaintiff. Plaintiff got himself impleaded in that suit which was dismissed on 26-7-1985. Plaintiff was not able to get the agreement enforced in view of the temporary injunction granted by the court. Plaintiff wanted defendant and his brother Govindan to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration. In the meantime Govindan had obtained a release of 1/3rd share of his brother Pulendran. Govindan executed an assignment in respect of his 2/3rd share on 26-8-1986. Defendant was not prepared to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement by defendant after receiving Rs. 6,6677- his share of the balance consideration.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. He denied the execution of the agreement and receipt of consideration. The receipt of the further amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-- was also denied by him. He contended that he had subscribed his signature in some of the papers taken to him by hisbrolher Govindan and those papers might have been utilised for preparing the agreement and the receipt. He did not agree to sell his share of the property. He therefore contended that the agreement is not enforceable against him.

4. The court below on a consideration of the documents and evidence held Ext. Al to be genuine document executed by defendant but denied the relief for the reason that defendant had not received any consideration on the date of the agreement or thereafter and that the agreement is not enforceable against one of the co - owners. It was further found that plaintiff has not expressed readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract before the expiry of the period mentioned in the document. In consequence the suit was dismissed. Hence the appeal.

5. Heard counsel on both sides.

6. The following points arise for consideration:

i. Whether the agreement can be enforced against the defendant who is only one of the executants of the agreement?

ii. Whether defendant has received any consideration for the agreement?

iii. Whether defendant had received any amount since the date of the agreement?

iv. Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

v. Whether there was any default on the part of the defendant in performing his part?

7- Point No. 1; Defendant and his (wo brothers agreed to assign the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,45,200/- of which an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid on the dale of the agreement and a further sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- thereafter. One of the brothers released his share to another brother who executed the assignment in respect of his 2/3rd share. Only performance of the part by the defendant remains. That was sought to be enforced by the plaintiff. The maintainability of the suit was questioned by the defendant before the court below for the reason that what was sought to be enforced is a part of the agreement and S.12 of the Specific Relief Act is a bar. T