The main legal point established is that under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, a party may relinquish claims and seek specific performance for a reduced portion of the contract, even at the appellate stage.

1. The defendants have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated July 5, 1977. The plaintiffs claimed that Tej Kaur, defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the land measuring 14 bighas 2 biswas described in the plaint for a total consideration of Rs. 35,250.00 at the rate of Rs. 2,500.00 per bighas. At the time of execution of the agreement, defendant No. 1 had received a sum of Rupees 2,000.00 as earnest money from the plaintiffs and the sale deed was to be executed on or before May 31, 1978. The plaintiffs claimed that defendant No. 1 intended to sell the suit land to defendants Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from alienating the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. They denied execution of the said agreement dated July 5, 1977 in favour of the plaintiffs. Receipt of the earnest money was also denied. It was also denied that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of agreement.

4. Similar pleas, as had been taken by Tej Kaur, defendant No. 1, were taken by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the written statement. The aforesaid defendants additionally claimed that vide an agreement dated Feb. 15, 1979, defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit land to the said defendants and had received Rs. 2,000.00 as an earnest money from them. The said defendants also claimed that the possession of the suit land had been delivered to them at the time of execution of the agreement.

5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence available on the record, found that defendant No. 1 had duly executed an agreement dated July, 5, 1977 Ex.P5 in favour of the plaintiffs and had received an earnest money of Rs. 2,000.00 . It was also held that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and it was defendant No. 1 who had backed out from the execution of the sale deed. The learned trial Court further found that although the agreement had stipulated that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell her 14 bighas 2 biswas of land but the evidence showed that she had merely 13 bighas 6 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 380, 381 and 1852. Accordingly, it was held that the aforesaid land was the land which was agreed to be sold by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. On that basis, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession by way of performance was decreed for land measuring 13 bighas 6 biswas. With regard to the shortage of the area in the land agreed to be sold by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs, the learned trial Court found that the defendants were entitled to be compensated by way of damages. The said damages were accordingly assessed at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per bighas i.e. Rs. 2,000.00 for the total land and Rs. 400.00 being the price for the deficient 16 biswas of land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were held entitled to Rs. 2,400.00 from defendant No. 1. The learned trial Court further held that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were merely claiming an agreement of sale in their favour executed by defendant No. 1 and the evidence on the record further showed that the aforesaid defendants could not be held to be bona fide transferees in any manner inasmuch as they did not make any enquiry with regard to the previous agreement. On the basis, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance was decreed.

6. The defendants took up the matter in appeal. The learned appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence. On such reappraisal, the learned first appellate Court came to the similar conclusions as were arrived at by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed.

7. The defendants have still remain dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the Regular Secon