1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement or in the alternative for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs one third share in the plaint A Schedule properties. The facts of the case are as follows:—

The defendants are the younger brothers of the plaintiff. The suit A schedule properties are the properties of the joint family. According to the plaintiff, the parties entered into an agreement Ex. A-28, for partition, on 22nd April 1965, under which they agreed to enjoy the properties as mentioned therein. The plaintiff seeks for specific enforcement of the agreement Ex. A-28, or in the alternative he prays that if the court finds that the said document is not specifically enforceable, the court may pass a decree for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the A Schedule properties. On the other hand, the defendants contend that subsequent to Ex. A-28, the plaintiff entered into an agreement under Ex. B-1, dated 3rd June 1965, in terms of which the plaintiff got his share and the defendants respectively get their shares of the items and are enjoying the same as being divided in status. As such