Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This second appeal raises a question relating to the construction of Section 16, Specific Relief Act, which runs thus:

When a part of contract which taken by itself can and ought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the Court may direct specific performance of the former part.

2. The facts may be briefly stated. Defendant 1, a Station Master, agreed to sell to the plaintiff, a plot of land measuring about 1 acre 14 cents. That plot had originally belonged to his wife, and upon her death, it devolved upon himself and his children his share being one-third and the share of the children being two-thirds. Out of the agreed consideration of Rs. 825 the plaintiff paid Rs. 250 as advance to defendant 1. The latter, with what motive it is unnecessary to enquire, repudiated the contract and it now transpires that two of his sons who have become majors are unwilling to fulfil it. It may now be taken that as regards two-thirds of the property (the childrens share) defendant 1 cannot be compelled to specifically perform the contract.