JUDGEMENT :- Appellant in this second appeal filed O.S.108/76 before the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale and also for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the decision was confirmed by the District Judge, Tellicherry in A.S. 248/78.

2. The subject-matter of the suit is 30 cents of land which belonged to defendants 2 and 3. They gave Ext. B6 power of attorney to the 1st defendant authorising him to sell ½ right over the said property. On the basis of that power 1st defendant entered into Ext. A1 agreement on 3-8-1974 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the entire 30 cents for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. Rs. 2,500/- was received as advance on the date of Ext. A1. The further case of the appellant is that on the date of Ext. A1 itself he was put in possession of the entire 30 cents and the sale deed had to be taken on payment of the balance amount on or before 31-10-1974. Alleging that 1st defendant demanded a higher price and attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff from the property he filed the suit.

3. The case put forward by the 1st defendant was that the appellant was not satisfied with the title and he wanted to resile from the agreement. It is also said that the advance amount was agreed to be re-paid and thereafter the power of attorney in his favour was cancelled.

4. Third defendant contended that on the basis of Ext. B1 sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant he became owner of the entire 30 cents and that he is in exclusive possession. Possession claimed by the appellant was denied by him. He has also stated that the 1st defendant had authority to deal with only ½ of the property and that the power was subsequently cancelled. So also it is said that the price fixed under Ext. A1 is grossly inadequate and the agreement was beyond the authority of the 1st defendant and hence it is not enforceable. Second defendant also raised identical contentions.

5. Both the trial court and the appellate court found the agreement to be valid to the extent of ½ right over the suit property. At the same time, basing on Ss.227 and 228 of the Contract Act, the trial court and the appellate court found that the agreement entered into by the 1st defendant beyond his authority is not separable from the portion for which he had the authority. On this ground the agreement was found to be not enforceable. What S.227 of the Contract Act says is that when an agent does more than he is authorised to do, and when the part of what he does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority is binding as between him and his principal. What S.228 says is that when an agent does more than he is authorised to do, and what he does beyond the scope of his authority cannot be separated from what is within it, the principal is not bound to recognise the transaction. I do not think that the courts below were right in the finding that the authorised portion is not separable from the unauthorised portion. What was authorised under Ext. B6 was only sale or agreement for sale of ½ of the property. But what was agreed was sale of the full right. S.12 of the Specific Relief Act authorises specific performance of a part of contract in certain specified cases even though the general provision is that specific performance of part of a contract shall not be directed. Under S.22 of the Specific Relief Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, any person suing for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in appropriate cases, ask for partition and separate possession of the property in addition to such performance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the unauthorised portion of Ext. A1 is inseparable from the authorised portion and hence for that reason the agree

Click Here to Read the rest of this document