1. The appellant-plaintiff sued for enforcement of Ext. P1, an agreement he entered into with the defendants in this case whereby the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 225/-. The plaintiff paid in advance an amount of Rs. 125/-, and the contract was to be performed within one year from the date of the agreement Since there was no move on the part of the defendants to perform their part of the contract the plaintiff issued Ext. P4 notice, which was addressed only to the 1st defendant though in the body of the notice all the three defendants were specifically named. Ext. P4 was returned with the endorsement that the addressee refused to accept it. The suit was laid for specifically enforcing the agreement for conveyance. The defendants resisted the action on various grounds, most of which, if not all, were false. The trial court decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defendants the lower appellate court took the view that there cannot be a decree for specific performance in as much as the plaint does not contain the necessary averments as laid down in S.16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff