Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The plaintiff (Mrs. Bhawari Devi Acha) filed a suit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement dated 17.1990, concerning a property at Rundalls Road, Madras, along with damages and other reliefs (!) (!) .

2. The sale agreement was made with the first defendant, who agreed to sell the property for Rs.7 lakhs and received an advance of Rs.1 lakh, with the promise to obtain probate and deliver vacant possession (!) .

3. The agreement included an alternative obligation: if the sale could not be completed due to probate or eviction issues, the first defendant would return the advance amount with interest. The primary obligation was the execution of the sale deed, but failure to do so would trigger the alternative obligation (!) (!) .

4. The first defendant contended that the property was allotted to the third defendant under a compromise decree in a probate case, and she was no longer the legal owner, thus she could not sell the property (!) .

5. The second defendant, husband of the first defendant and executor of the will, stated he was not the owner of the property and was not a party to the sale agreement, asserting that the agreement was invalid against him and that he had no knowledge or consent (!) .

6. The third defendant, who was allotted the property under the probate decree, also stated he was not a party to the sale agreement and was unaware of it. The enforceability of the agreement against him was contested, and he was not a party to the contract (!) (!) .

7. The court observed that the property was no longer under the control of the first defendant and that the agreement could not be specifically enforced against her or the third defendant, as they were not parties to the agreement or the current owner of the property (!) (!) .

8. The court noted that the agreement was in an alternative form, and since the primary obligation (sale deed execution) was impossible due to the property being allocated to the third defendant, the first defendant was directed to return the advance amount with interest. The court emphasized that the obligation to perform in the primary manner was impeded, and the alternative obligation (return of money) should be enforced (!) (!) .

9. The court dismissed the injunction application, vacating the interim injunction, but ordered the first defendant to deposit the advance amount of Rs.3,25,000 with interest within four weeks. The plaintiff was permitted to withdraw this amount without security, and any sale or dealing with the property by the defendants would be subject to the final outcome of the suit (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the court highlighted that the enforceability of the specific performance depended on the current ownership status of the property, which had changed due to the probate proceedings and the allotment to the third defendant. The case was primarily considered at this stage on the basis of the contractual obligations and the impossibility of performance, reserving final judgments for trial.