The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific performance can be granted for a part of a contract under Sec. 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the consideration to be paid can be reduced proportionately when a party seeks specific performance of part of a contract.

1. This appeal has been preferred against decree for specific performance of part of the contract relating to share of the appellant in the suit property.

2. The respondent filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23-5-1992 whereby the appellant agreed to sell land measuring 16 kanals for Rs. 2,30,000/- out of which advance of Rs. 2500/- was received at the time of agreement and sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 22-12-1992 on receiving the remaining amount.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that he offered the remaining amount and also went to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 22-12-1992 but the defendant-appellant failed to execute the sale deed without any valid reason.

4. The defendant-appellant contested the suit stating that by virtue of subsequent oral agreement, the suit property was sold by sale deed dated 10-6-1992 in favour of plaintiffs mother Dalip Kaur and, thus, the agreement dated 25-5-1992 ceased to operate, Paramjit Singh, pro forma respondent (son of the defendant-appellant) was also added as a party and in his written statement, he stated that his father had no authority to enter into agreement with regard to share of land belonging to him.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that since agreement to sell related to 16 kanals of land and since Paramjit Singh, pro forma respondent was a minor and no permission was taken from the Court for selling his share, the agreement in absence of mention of specific share of Balkar Singh, was void for vagueness and could not be specifically enforced.

6. On appeal, the lower appellate Court partly decreed the suit, to the extent of share of the appellant, on payment of proportionate sale consideration after deducting the advance. It was held that share of minor was 6 kanals 17 marlas which will be excluded out of land agreed to be sold. The lower appellate Court relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Kartar Kaur V/s. Harjinder Singh, AIR 1990 SC 854. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that decree for performance of a part of the agreement could not be passed when plaintiff had knowledge that defendant had no authority to agree to sell the entire land. He relied on decision of a single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Polepalle Subramanyam V/s. Gundamreddy Peddakka, (2001) 2 Rec Civ R 386. He further submitted that even if suit was to be decreed to the extent of a part of the land, consideration required to be paid could not be reduced proportionately. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Apex Court in Rachakonda Narayana V/s. Ponthala Parvathamma, (2001) 4 Rec Civ R 610 : (AIR 2001 SC 3353).

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supported the findings of the appellate Court particularly finding in para 14 of the impugned judgment.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

10. Sec. 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act), deals with the subject of specific performance of part of contract. It provides for situations when Court will not direct specific performance and when Court will direct specific performance. Under Sec. 12(4) when a part of the contract which can be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing than that part which cannot be performed, the Court may direct specific performance of the former part.

11. In Kartar Kaurs case (AIR 1990 SC 854) (supra), the Apex Court held as under (Para 4) :-

"When the property is owned jointly, unless it is shown to the contrary, it has to be held that each one of the joint owners owns a moiety of the property............" "In the circumstances when the absentee vendor, for some reason or the other, refused to accept the agreement, there is no reason why the agreement should not be enforced against the vendor who had signed it and whose property is identifiable by his specific share."

12 With the above observations, the Apex Court grante