Plaintiff who had abandoned his rights is not entitled to specific performance.

Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed C.S.No.236 of 1981 for specific performance of the contract or in the alternative directing defendants 1 to 4 to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.80,300 and further interest of Rs.59,900 at 12 per cent per annum.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

Defendants 1 to 4 are the co-owners of the suit premises. The first defendant has been given the right of enjoyment during her lifetime without powers of alteration and defendants 2 to 4 have been given absolute interest after the lifetime of the first defendant. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale between with defendants 1 to 4 on 212. 1975 in respect of the suit property for a price of Rs.1,70,000 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.25,000 as advance on the date of agreement. The sale transaction was agreed to be completed and the sale deed to be registered on or about 33. 1977. It was also agreed that the first defendant would execute a deed of release of her life interest in the property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 accelerating the interest of defendants 2 to 4 to absolute interest within a week from the date of the above agreement and the plaintiff would pay a further sum of Rs.25,000 to the first defendant on the execution and registration of the said deed of release out of the purchase money. It was also agreed that the balance of the purchase money would be paid to defendants 2 to 4 at the time of registration of the sale deed in the presence of the registering officer. Defendants 1 to 4 had delivered certain title deeds for examination by the plaintiffs legal adviser at the time of execution of the above agreement. Right from the beginning, defendants 1 to 4 did not keep up to the terms of the agreement strictly. Even though the first defendant did not execute a deed of release, the plaintiff made several payments by way of further advance from time to time. Despite the repeated requests from the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 did not take necessary steps for procuring permission from the Income-tax Department and also did not obtain encumbrance certificate for finalising the sale transaction. Time for completion of the sale transaction was extended by mutual agreement between the parties upto 312. 1977. The plaintiff wrote letters to defendants 1 to 4 to complete the sale transaction. Defendants 1 to 4 replied to the plaintiff on 13. 1978 admitting the receipt of advance amount and they had stated that they had entered into an agreement with the sixth defendant and received a sum of Rs.5,000 from them. But, that agreement was not pursued and defendants 1 to 4 had also stated that they were unable to complete the transaction having received notice form the court in Application No.910 of 1978 in C.S.No.106 of 1978 restraining them from disposing of the property. The plaintiff subsequently came to know that defendants 1 to 4 have entered into a subsequent agreement with the fifth defendant for sale of their property for a price of Rs.1,75,000. Defendants 1 to 4 had stated that they would contest the application in getting the interim injunction vacate and pursue the sale transaction with the plaintiff. Then time for completion of the sale transaction was extended upto 33. 1978. The injunction granted in Application No.910 of 1978 was made absolute. C.S.No.106 of 1978 filed by defendants 5 and 6 is still pending and defendants 1 to 4 are retaining the advances made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has impleaded defendants 5 and 6 as parties to the present suit to enable the plaintiff to have a binding adjudication in their presence. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff did not approach the court earlier because of the pendency of the Suit C.S.No.106 of 1978. The first defendant has purported to have released her rights in the suit property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 by executing a