Ramesam, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. Plaintiff is the appellant before us. The facts out of which the suit arises are as follows. The suit property which consists of four-fifths share in Mudikandam Village in Trichinopoly District belonged to the family of T. Sadasiva Tawker and others who were carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of T.R. Tawker & Sons. On 11th April, 1924, the property was mortgaged by the owners to the 1st defendant (who is the firm of Chathurbuja Das Kushal Das & Sons carrying on business in Mint Street, Madras) under Ex. VI. Under this document the mortgagees have got a power of sale without the intervention of Court. T.R. Tawker & Sons having failed in their business they were adjudicated insolvents and their properties are vested in the Official Assignee of Madras, who is the 5th defendant in the case. The 2nd defendant is Kissen Das Girdar Das, a partner and the authorised agent of the 1st defendant firm. He went to Trichinopoly in May, 1927 and got a notice published proclaiming the sale, by public auction, of this and other properties. One property (not the subject of this suit) was to be sold on the 7th May at 5 p.m. in Veedivadangam and on the 8th May the suit property was to be sold in Mudikandam Village (Ex. B). It would appear that, at the last moment, i.e., after the sale of the first property was actually effected at Veedivadangam, the persons who were conducting the auction, i.e., the 2nd defendant and his legal adviser Mr. P.S. Krishnamurthi Aiyar, Advocate of Trichinopoly, changed their mind and informed the persons who were present there that the sale of Mudikandam would be effected in the house of the Advocate at Trichinopoly itself on the 8th May. A messenger was also despatched to Mudikandam to inform the possible intending purchasers accordingly. On the 8th May the auction was held in the house of Mr. Krishnamurthi Aiyar and four persons made the initial deposit of Rs. 100 required under the conditions of sale, viz., (1) Pichai Moideen Rowthar (plaintiff in the present suit), (2) another Muhammadan gentleman, (3) Palaniandi Pillai (who is the 3rd defendant in the suit), and (4) Sundaram Aiyar (a clerk of Mr. Krishnamurthi Aiyar). The bids began with Rs. 4,000. Up to Rs. 7,000 all the four depositors took part in the bids. Afterwards the present plaintiff and Palaniandi Pillai were the only bidders. The bids went up to Rs. 12,550, the last bid being that of Palaniandi Pillai and the sale was knocked down in his favour (vide Ex. B-1). Under the conditions of sale the successful bidder should deposit 25 per cent, of the purchase money immediately after deducting the deposit of Rs. 100 and the balance of the purchase money should be paid on the 15th day after the sale. In default, the deposit shall be forfeited, the sale shall stand cancelled and a fresh auction shall be held and the defaulting purchaser shall be liable for any deficiency that may arise on the re-sale. The evidence shows that the successful bidder (the 3rd defendant) instead of paying 25 per cent, of the purchase money paid Rs. 300 in addition to the deposit and "expressed inability to pay the balance at that late hour of the night and promised to pay it before 10 A.M. on the 9th". He executed an agreement to that effect along with one Ratnam Pillai. What exactly happened on the 9th and 10th is the subject of some difference between the parties. All that we know is that the balance amount was not paid and on the 10th May Mr. Krishnamurthi Aiyar sent a registered letter (Ex. F) to the 3rd defendant in which he mentions the facts as above stated and says that at 9 A.M. on the 10th May 3rd defendant pleaded his inability to pay and set up false and frivolous excuses. My client apprehends that you are acting at the instigation of the ryots of Mudikandam and that you were acting fraudulently in bidding in competition at the sale without evidently having the means of