An agreement of sale must be valid and enforceable in order to be specifically performed. An agreement is not valid if it is signed by an illiterate person who does not understand its contents, if it is vague and does not specify the particulars of the property to be sold, or if the seller only holds a fractional share in the property and the other co-owners are not parties to the agreement.

1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. The plaintiffs case is as follows:—

The suit property is in enjoyment of the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs. 8 per culie and entered into an agreement of sale on 12.8.1981. The defendant also received a sum of Rs. 500. The total price of the suit property is Rs. 3,112/- at the rate of Rs. 8 per culie. According to the terms of the agreement the defendant shall receive the balance within a month and execute a sale deed. The plaintiff purchased the necessary stamp papers and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. As the defendant was delaying, the plaintiff issued a notice on 8.9.1981 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant refused to receive the notice. Then the plaintiff issued a telegram to the defendant calling upon the defendant to come to the Sub Registrars Office to execute the sale deed. But despite the same the defendant did not choose to come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence the suit.

2. The defendant contended as follows:—

The defendant never entered into an agreement of sale. The property belonged to the defendants father-in-law Lakshmanan. He died leaving behind his sons Dakshinamurthy and two other sons. This property was allotted to the share of Dakshinamurthy. The defendant is managing the said land after the death of her husband. She has three sons and two daughters. She is not the absolute owner of the property. The defendant was asked to give the land to the plaintiff for the purpose of excavating the earth to put up brickiln. The period was fixed as one year and the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 100 per lakh of bricks. The defendant agreed and the signature of the defendant was obtained in a document. The defendant does not know to read and write. She believed the words of Chockalingam. She received Rs. 500/-. It was stated that the amount shall be settled as and when the bricks are taken from brickiln. The defendant has not received any notice or telegram. In 1981 in the month of September she was at the Hospital attending his son Karunanithi. It was only after the suit summons she came to know that the plaintiff has brought about the said document with ulterior motive. The document is vitiated.

3. The learned District Munsif, Mayuram dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Sub Court, Mayuram and the learned Sub Judge, by his judgment dated 28.6.1983 allowed the appeal. Hence the second appeal by the defendant.

The only point for consideration is:

Whether the agreement of sale dated 12.8.1981 is true and valid? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance?

4. The Point:— The defendant has taken a definite stand in the written statement that it is her ancestral property obtained by her husband in partition and that her husband died leaving behind three sons and two daughters. In the plaint it is not stated that the property belongs solely to the defendant. It is simply stated that the property was enjoyed by the defendant. When the plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 she has not chosen to say that the property belonged absolutely to the defendant. Therefore when the defendant has taken the stand that the property is an ancestral property and that it has been obtained by her husband in a partition and that her husband has died leaving behind three sons and two daughters and the defendant is a heir, the suit by the plaintiff for specific performance against the defendant alone cannot be maintained. It is not the plaintiffs case that the defendant executed the agreement as the Manager of the Hindu family. She being a female cannot be the manager of any co-parcenery nor of any joint family. Therefore it cannot be stated that the agreement was executed by her as the Manager. It is also not by her as a guardian of any minor children. It is executed by hen as tho