Agreement alone cannot be held sufficient for obtaining decree of specific performance.

The parties to these appeals will be referred to as parties in O.S. No.1079 of 1979 from which S.A. No.69 of 1983 arises.

2. O.S. No.1079 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant herein, to specifically enforce Ex.A-2 agreement dated 27. 1978 executed by the first defendant in the suit. The second defendant therein is the plaintiff in the connected suit O.S. No.226 of 1981. That is a suit for redemption filed against the appellant/ plaintiff in O.S. No.1079 of 1979. The 3rd defendant is the husband of the second defendant and defendants 4 and 5 are persons claiming to have some right over superstructure as co-lessee of the site. Hence they are also impleaded.

3. 5th defendant is also the husband of the plaintiff and he was examined as P.W. 1 in this case.

4. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: As stated in the plaint, the property belonged to the 1st defendant who executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff on 27. 1978, agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs.22,000 within a period of five months and a sum of Rs.500 was also paid as advance. Plaintiff was all along ready and willing to take the sale deed in terms of the document. But it is seen that the 1st defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant 28. 1978 in respect of the plaint property along with other properties. The sale in favour of the second defendant is intended only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff as agreement-holder. The sale in favour of the second defendant will be subject to the agreement and the second defendant also purchased the property only after she came to know about the agreement. Repeated demands were made to the first defendant to execute the sale deed. But he has failed to do so. It is also said that in the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, there are certain recitals which will show that the same is sham, unnatural and intended only to mislead persons who have got interest over the properties. Since the first defendant has failed to perform his part of the contract, this suit is instituted for the reliefs stated above.

5. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant who was admittedly the owner of the property, it is said that he has executed an agreement as alleged in the plaint. But the third defendant who is a very influential person in the locality contacted him and wanted the sale to be executed in favour of his wife. He also said that the third defendant represented that he will settle the matter with the plaintiff even if there is an agreement, and it was with that understanding, he executed the agreement of sale on 28. 1978 in favour of the second defendant. He said that he is an unnecessary party to the suit. He wants dismissal of the suit.

6. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, it is said that the agreement dated 27. 1978 is not true. On the date when she took the sale deed, there was no agreement, and it can only be the result of a collusive transaction, with an intention to defeat her right as owner of the property. She further said that the agreement can only be an ante-dated agreement. As owner of the property, she is entitled to redeem the mortgage, which is a charge on the property and, therefore, she has already filed a suit O.S. No.226 of 1981 for redemption. She also said that her husband is an unnecessary party to the suit, and the 4th defendant has also no right over the same. She also contended that the superstructure in the property belongs to the original owner, the 1st defendant, and it was not constructed either by plaintiff or by her husband.

7. All the other defendants remained ex parte.

8. In the connected suit O.S. No.226 of 1981, plaintiff is the second defendant and the sole defendant therein is the plaintiff in the earlier suit. In the sale deed in favour of the second defendant admittedly executed by the first defendant, there is a direction to redeem a simple mortgage for Rs.2,000. That is Ex