The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment

and decree of the lower Appellate Court in decreeing the

3

suit for specific performance granting relief of specific

performance of contract in favour of respondent/plaintiff.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

Plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance

of contract relying on agreement to sale dated 16.11.2004.

Plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is

owned by defendants and they have agreed to sell the

same in favour of plaintiff by fixing the value at `850/- per

gunta. Therefore, plaintiff claimed that the defendants

have agreed to sell 1 acre 16 guntas for a sale

consideration of `47,600/- and on the date of execution of

sale agreement, defendants received an advance amount

of `20,000/-.

3.

Plaintiff alleging that defendants are not coming

forward to perform their part of contract filed a suit for

specific performance of contract. On receipt of summons,

the defendants contested the proceedings and stoutly

4

denied the very execution of suit agreement in favour of

plaintiff. The defendants in their defence contended that

the suit schedule property is a joint family ancestral

property of defendant No.1 husband B.Ramashastry and

his brothers. Therefore, defendants contended that there is

no division and for want of specific boundaries, it was

contended that the suit agreement cannot be enforced as

the agreement vaguely speaks about 1/4^th share of

defendants. The defendants also contended that the

agreement is created, concocted and fabricated. Both the

parties have led in oral and documentary evidence to

substantiate their claim.

4.

The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in

affirmative and thereby recorded a categorical finding that

plaintiff has succeeded in proving the due execution of suit

agreement and payment of advance amount of `20,000/-.

While dealing with issue No.2, the Trial Court held that the

plaintiff

has

proved

his

readiness

and

willingness.

5

However, while considering in regard to entitlement of

discretionary relief of specific performance, the Trial Court

was of the view that suit agreement vide Ex.P.1 does not

indicate specific boundaries of 1 acre 16 guntas. The

learned Trial Judge was of the view that 1/4^th share in the

entire extent is not specified by boundaries and therefore,

the Trial Court was of the view that plaintiff is not entitled

for decree for specific performance of contract as the

description in the suit agreement does not contain

boundaries. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was of the

view that since property is not identifiable, relief of specific

performance of contract cannot be granted.

5.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.

23/2011. The Appellate Court having independently

assessed oral and documentary evidence, while examining

Ex.P.1 took a contra view in regard to the identification of

the property. The Appellate court having referred Ex.P.1,

found that the suit agreement does disclose boundaries

6

and

schedule.

The

Appellate

Court

having

taken

cognizance of Ex.P.13 also found that the brother-in-law of

respondent No.1 has alienated 1/4^th share to third parties.

Therefore, the Appellate Court found that the schedule is

quite clear and tally's with the schedule shown in the

plaint. The Appellate Court also found that the defendants

have not taken any defence under Section 20 of Specific

Relief Act. Therefore, having examined the equities, the

Appellate Court was of the view that the plaintiff is entitled

for discretionary relief of specific performance. On these

set of reasoning's, the Appellate Court has reversed the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the

suit thereby granting larger relief in favour of the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is the defenda