Rajamannar, C.J.-This appeal raises an interesting question of law on which there is no direct authority. The facts necessary for discussing this question are briefly these. Defendants 2 and 3 executed a sale-deed (Exhibit P-1) on 2nd August, 1942, conveying the suit properties to the first plaintiff. The second defendant by a sale-deed dated 1st July, 1942, purported to convey the same properties to the first defendant. It has now been found by the Courts below that this saledeed was ante-dated and that it was actually executed subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the first plaintiff. After the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the first plaintiff, evidently in view of the sale deed executed by the second defendant, in favour of the first defendant, the third defendant added the following at the end of the sale deed:

“Should any dispute arise in respect of this it shall not concern us”.

Though the plural is used, only the third defendant made this endorsement. When the document was presented for registration the third defendant accepted execution; but the second defendant refused to join in the registration on the ground that there had been a material alteration in the sale-deed, referring to the endorsement made by the third defendant above mentioned. An application was made to the District Registrar by the first plaintiff for compulsory registration. But the application was rejected. Thereupon he filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Arni (O.S. No. 167 of 1943) for setting aside the order of the Registrar refusing registration. The suit was dismissed. An appeal filed against the decree in the suit was also dismissed. On 21st July, 1944, during the pendency of the appeal, the first plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for an injunction and in the alternative, for possession of the entire property or for partition and possession of a half share. Subsequently, after certain proceedings which it is not necessary to mention, the plaint was amended and an alternative relief for specific performance was added and it was prayed that the second defendant may be directed to execute a fresh deed in respect of his half share. Meanwhile the first plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The learned District Munsif held that because the plaintiffs had not performed their part of the contract and had not expressed their willingness and readiness to pay the share of the consideration to the second defendant, the plaintiffs were not entitled to obtain specific performance. He therefore granted a decree declaring the plaintiffs’ right to a half share in the suit properties belonging to the third defendant and directed a partition. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance in respect of the share of the second defendant and directed defendants 1 and 2 to execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs of the moiety in the suit properties which belonged to the second defendant and to put the plaintiffs in possession of the same. The first defendant filed a second appeal against the said decision of the District Judge (S.A.No. 271 of 1949) which was disposed of by Subba Rao, J. Two questions of law only were raised before the learned Judge, namely (1) that the suit for specific performance was not maintainable as a sale-deed had already been executed both by the second and third defendants and in view of section 77 of the Indian Registration Act and (2) that specific performance could not be granted to the plaintiffs as they had not expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The learned Judge decided both the questions against the first defendant and held that the suit for specific performance was maintainable as against the second defendant and dismissed the second appeal but granted leave to file a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document