The plaintiff's uncertainty regarding the agreement to be specifically enforced precluded the grant of specific performance of the agreement dated 17. 1979.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

The defendants 2 to 3 in the suit for specific performance are before us having lost both before the trial Court and the learned single Judge. They claim to have entered into an agreement with the first defendant the owner of the property and pending the suit obtained a decree for specific performance against the first defendant and the sale deed has also been executed in their favour. They are aggrieved by the concurrent decrees against them.

2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff. She filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 23. 1979 by executing the sale deed in her favour for Rs.61, 312/- on receiving the balance of Rs.45, 811/-or a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 17. 1979 by executing the sale deed in her favour for Rs.70, 000/- upon receiving the balance of Rs.55, 000/-These are the alternative prayers of this unusual case.

3. The facts are that the property described in the suit schedule belonged to the father of the second respondent. It was allotted to the second respondent in a partition. The fist respondent and her husband had been residing in the property for more than 20 years as tenants. The second respondent initiated eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller, Salem.. There were talks of compromise and then the second respondent expressed his intention to sell the property to the first respondent. On 23. 1979 an agreement was entered into and the sale consideration was calculated at the rate of Rs.26 per sq.ft. And a sum of Rs.501/-was received as advance in the presence of the witnesses. The second respondent agreed to bring the surveyor and measure the entire property. It was also agreed that the first respondent and her husband should continue to reside therein and pay the rent till the sale is executed. Two months later i.e. in May 1979, the second respondent received another sum of Rs.15,000/- for his urgent expenses apart from the earlier sum of Rs.501/-requesting her to treat it as advance. In June-July 1979, the second respondent brought a document and mentioned that there was some mistake in the earlier document and that he would rectify it and bring a fresh document. This document was taken away by him and torn off by him. The second respondent agreed to bring a surveyor to measure the property. But he did not do so. In the first week of July 1979, the first respondent came to know that there was an encumbrance over the suit property and that the second respondent had mortgaged the property on 5. 1975 for Rs.17, 000/-. When this was mentioned to the second respondent he agreed to discharge the mortgage with the amount received as advance. On 8. 1979, the second respondent came to the house of the first respondent with two typed documents which were already signed by him. He requested the first respondent to sign at the marked portions and also asked her husband and his son to sign in the place left out between the signature already found. He asked her to sign and give one document quickly since he had to see his father who was seriously ill and this was done in about 5 or 10 minutes in due compliance with the second respondents request. Thereafter the first respondent, her husband and her son found that the document which was left with them appeared to be an agreement for sale of the property for Rs.70,000/- wherein an advance of Rs.15,000/-had been paid. The first respondent pleaded that the recitals in this document were far from truth and the real agreement and concluded contract was the one that was entered into on 23. 1979. Since the second respondent had obtained her signature in a document which contained particulars relating to date, price and the advance amount contrary to the real agreement, she and her husband rushed to his place and found that the second respondent was absent and his father was hale and healthy. They found that the story given by the second respondent was false and motivated and the