Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th March 1980, passed by the First Subordinate Judge, Arrah in Title Suit No. 151 of 1974, whereby the said suit for specific performance of contract and for direction to the defendant No. 1 to execute sale-deed in respect of 6.15 acres of land, described in Schedule 1 to the plaint, in favour of the plaintiffs on receipt of balance consideration money as per agreement for sale dated 5.10.1973, was dismissed. 2. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1, Ambika Tiwary of village Bibta, district Patna alongwith his brother Kamta Tiwary acquired the lands detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint by way of gift from his uncle, Indradeo Tiwary. The gifted lands were at village Koil, P.S. Piro, district Bhojpur. 3. Admittedly the said property acquired by gift by the two brothers were joint between them, namely, Ambika Tiwary and Kamta Tiwary. The said deed of gift was brought on record and marked as Ext. B. 4. It appears that after executing a sale agreement for sale on 5.10.1973, in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 and his brother defendant No. 5 jointly executed another registered agreement for sale (Ext. C) of the land in question in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 and subsequently executed registered sale-deeds Exts. A series therefor in favour of those defendants 2 to 4. 5. Certain papers Exts. D to D/2 were brought on record in the suit to show that the one time there was a compromise in the matter amongst the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 5 and defendants 2 to 4. 6. However, without going into other matters, most important aspect of the matter in the present case, in my opinion, is that admittedly the property in question was joint among the two brothers, Ambika Tiwary and Kamta Tiwary and the executant of the agreement for sale dated 5.10.1973 Ext. 1, namely, Ambika Tiwary had only half share therein. 7. The trial court rightly found that there was nothing on record to suggest that Ambika Tiwary had executed the agreement for sale as Karta of the joint family. 1, namely, Ambika Tiwary had only half share therein. 7. The trial court rightly found that there was nothing on record to suggest that Ambika Tiwary had executed the agreement for sale as Karta of the joint family. There is also nothing on record to show that his brother, who was admittedly an adult, when the contract was entered into, was consulted about it and had agreed to the transaction and/or even he had knowledge of the transaction. 8. It is well settled that granting specific performance is always discretion of the court and, in my view, in a case of this kind like present one, the trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction by refusing specific performance. The defendant No. 1 was unable to perform the contract in question and so the plaintiffs were not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance. 9. The essence of a coparcenary under the Mitakshra Law is unity of ownership. There is nothing on record that the agreement executed by the defendant No. 1 was for any legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. It cannot, therefore, bind the interest of the defendant No.5 and both the defendants 1 and 6 being joint and governed by the law of Mitakshra the plaintiffs could not enforced the contract/agreement even as against the defendant No. 1 in respect of his undevided interest. 10. In the case before me, there is no claim on behalf of the plaintiffs that they were willing to pay the entire consideration money for obtaining a decree against the interest of Ambika Tiwary alone in the property and so the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief even under Sec. 15 of the Specific Relief Act even against the defendant No. 4. 11. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree and this appeal is dismissed, but without costs.