The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the notice Ext. B in the context of seeking specific performance, as well as the determination of the appellant's obligations regarding the balance consideration and prior encumbrance.

1. Defendant 4 in O.S. No. 21 of 1119 on the file of the District Court, Parur, has preferred this appeal against the decree that Court passed in the suit for specific performance of an agreement by defendants 1 to 3 to sell certain items of immovable properties to the plaintiff. The appellant purchased those properties subsequent to the contract for sale and the lower court's decree directs enforcement of the agreement against the appellant as well as one whose title arose after it came into being. Hence this appeal by him.

2. The main defence he raised to the suit was that he was a transferee for value who paid the consideration for the sale in his favour in good faith and without notice to the original contract. That defence has been found against by the learned judge in the court below and the appellant's learned Counsel did not try to repeat that contention before us. The one and the sole point urged before us to nonsuit the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had by his notice Ext. B issued to defendants 1 to 3 abandoned his claim for specific performance of the contract and elected to limit his remedy to claim damages instead. No doubt the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 raises such a defence and what the appellant is now doing is to abandon the defence he himself raised and try to depend upon a plea raised by his vendors. There is nothing to preclude him from adopting such a course but we are afraid Ext. B does not lend itself to the construction sought to be put upon it. It states that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and invites defendants 1 to 3 to go over to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Moovattupuzha, on 30.2.1119 to have the conveyance executed and registered and to receive the balance consideration payable as per the terms of the agreement. It further states that in the event of defendants failing to comply with the request the plaintiff will be taking such action as he is advised to take and that the defendants (defendants 1 to 3) and the properties will be held liable for all his losses and damages. Reading the notice as a whole all that it intends to convey is that unless defendants 1 to 3 execute the conveyance as agreed to, the plaintiff will file a suit and that the defendants will be liable for all consequences thereof. The plaintiff has not stated that he will be content with receiving damages. The written statements the defendants filed in the suit as also the memorandum of appeal filed before this court on behalf of the appellant proceed as if the provision for liquidated damages in a contract of sale would preclude a party thereto from seeking specific performance thereof. This is a wrong assumption as would be clear from S. 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Further S.19 provides that any person suing for the performance of a contract may also ask for compensation for his breach, either in addition to, or in substitution for, such performance. Viewed in the light of these provisions occurring in the Specific Relief Act and the language of Ext. B we cannot persuade ourselves to accept the construction sought to be put upon the notice Ext. B by the appellant's learned Counsel that there is a definite abandonment there of the plaintiff's right to seek specific performance.

3. This, as stated already, was the main point pressed in the appeal and for reasons stated above it cannot succeed. However there are a few other points to be referred to in respect of which our interference would seem to be called for. One of such points is that the lower court's direction that the money paid into the court towards the balance of consideration for the sale should be drawn by defendants 1 to 3 jointly. On their own showing defendants 1 to 3 had received consideration for the sale they executed in favour of defendant 4, vide para 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3. No doubt defendants 1 and 2 tried to go back upon that cas