Judgment :- A. RAMAMURTHI, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 608 of 1980 and O.S. No. 513 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, have preferred these two second appeals aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S. Nos. 21 of 1984 and 2 of 1980 on the file of District Court, Dharmapuari at Krishnagiri confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29.7.1983. The case in brief is as follows : The plaintiff in the respective suits have filed suits to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed conveying the suit property mentioned in the suits to the plaintiff on receiving the consideration of Rs. 2, 310 and Rs. 4, 772.50 respectively, in default, the sale deed to be executed by the Court on behalf of the defendant and cause its registration. The suit property mentioned in the schedule belonged to the defendant. The defendant filed a suit O.S. No. 312 of 1967 for declaration and possession and obtained a decree. The defendant filed E.P. No. 20 of 1979 seeking delivery of possession. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property long prior to the filing of that suit and a compromise was entered into in E.P. No. 20 of 1979 by a joint endorsement by both the plaintiff and the defendant duly recorded by the Court on 21.8.1979. As per the joint endorsement, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for the market price to be fixed within six months from that date i.e. before 21.2.1980, in default, the plaintiff will lose his right to get the conveyance and if he fails to get the sale deed executed from the defendant within the stipulated time, the defendant is bound to execute the sale of the property on receipt of the consideration fixed at the market price determined. On the application of the plaintiff, the Tahsildar, Uthangarai fixed the market price of Rs. 5 per sq.ft. and on that basis, for the extent of 462 sq.ft. the value was fixed at Rs. 2, 310. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and demanded execution of the sale deed. He also intimated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and issued notice on 15.12.1979 received by the defendant on 18.12.1979 and no reply was sent. the value was fixed at Rs. 2, 310. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and demanded execution of the sale deed. He also intimated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and issued notice on 15.12.1979 received by the defendant on 18.12.1979 and no reply was sent. The plaintiff had also purchased the necessary stamp papers on 20.12.1979 and the defendant evaded to perform his part of the contract and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance.The plaintiff in O.S. No. 513 of 1980 also sought specific performance relating to an extent of 954 sq.ft. at the value of Rs. 4, 772.50. He also sent a notice dated 21.3.1980 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed and the same was received on 21.3.1980 but no reply was sent. The defendant is bound to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of the sale consideration and hence he filed the suit. The defendant filed a separate written statement admitting that the property belonged to him. He also admitted the filing of suit O.S. No. 812 of 1967 and after getting a decree, filed execution petition as well as the subsequent compromise endorsement in E.P. that the defendant would sell the respective suit property to the plaintiff for the market price to be fixed within six months from that date with a default clause. But as per the endorsement, the plaintiff did not approach the defendant to have the market price of the property fixed. There is no concluded contract between the parties for selling the property. Unless the price was fixed by mutual negotiation within the specified period, the plaintiff is not entitled to purchase the property at the price now offered. There is no mutuality for the agreement. The plaintiff is not entitled to specifically enforce the same. The market price of the property at Rs. 5 per sq.ft. is not correct. The plaintiff ought to have approached the defendant and had the price fixed by mutual negotiation. The Tahsildar, Uthangarai, has no jurisdiction to fix the price for the suit land. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If the plaintiff was so eager to purchase the property, he could have approached the defendant within 21.2.1980 and had the sale concluded. The Tahsildar, Uthangarai, has no jurisdiction to fix the price for the suit land. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If the plaintiff was so eager to purchase the property, he could have approached the defendant within 21.2.1980 and had the sale concluded. The market value of the property is more than Rs. 15 per sq.ft. The plaintiff has also been acting against the interests of the defendant. When the endorsement in the Execution Petition was made it was agreed that plaintiff should leave at least 3 ft. space from the compound wall put up by the defendant and then only construct a building. But on the other hand, without getting the sale concluded the plaintiff had put up a wall just adjacent to the compound wall of the defendant. The compound wall of the defendant has fallen down to the length of nearly 60 sq.ft. and thereby damage was caused to the tune of over Rs. 1, 000. Since the plaintiffs are acting against the interests of the defendant, they are not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. Hence the suit is/are liable to be dismissed.The trial Court framed five issues in O.S. No. 608 of 1980 and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W. 1 was examined and no documents were marked. Ten issues were framed in O.S. No. 513 of 1980 on behalf of the plaintiff P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W. 1 was examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court dismissed both the suits and aggrieved against this, the plaintiff preferred appeals in A.S. Nos. 21 of 1984 and 2 of 1980 respectively and the lower appellate Court also, after hearing the parties, dismissed both the appeals and aggrieved against this, the respective plaintiffs have come forward with the present second appeals. At the time of admission of both the second appeals, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration : SA. No. 1085 of 1989 : Whether Ex. A-6 is an agreement that could be specifically enforced in law ? At the time of admission of both the second appeals, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration : SA. No. 1085 of 1989 : Whether Ex. A-6 is an agreement that could be specifically enforced in law ? S.A. No. 1755 of 1992 : (1) Whether the joint endorsement made in E.P. No. 20 of 1979 does not constitute unenforceable contract ? (2) Whether the failure of the lower appellate Court to consider the effect of the endorsement by the counsel on E.P. No. 20 of 1979 does not amount to failure to consider material evidence calling for interference under Section 100, C.P.C. ? The defendant/respondent in both these appeals is one and the same. Although the plaintiffs/appellants in the respective appeals are different persons yet the subject matter of the dispute relates to the joint endorsement made at the time of execution petition in the earlier E.P. proceedings, the following common judgment is pronounced. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are described in the respective suits.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The suit property in O.S. No. 608 of 1980 is measuring an extent of 462 sq.ft. and in the property covered in O.S. No. 513 of 1980 is measuring an extent of 954 sq.ft. and admittedly, the properties belonged to the defendant. It is also admitted by the parties that the defendant filed O.S. No. 812 of 1967 and obtained a decree. Later, the defendant also filed E.P. No. 20 of 1979 and as the respective plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the property long prior to the suit, a compromise was entered into and the joint endorsement was made by both the plaintiffs and the defendant and recorded by the Court on 21.8.1979. As per the joint endorsement, the defendant agreed to sell the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff for the market price to be fixed within six months from that date with usual default clause. It appears that the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Uthangarai for fixation of the market price and he had fixed at Rs. 5 per sq.ft. and based upon that, the respective plaintiffs issued notice to the defendant calling upon him to covey the property after receiving a sum of Rs. 2, 310 and also Rs. 4, 772.50. It appears that the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Uthangarai for fixation of the market price and he had fixed at Rs. 5 per sq.ft. and based upon that, the respective plaintiffs issued notice to the defendant calling upon him to covey the property after receiving a sum of Rs. 2, 310 and also Rs. 4, 772.50. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but since the defendant evaded conveyance of the property, they were constrained to file the respective suits. Per contra, the defendant contended that although joint endorsement was made between the parties, the price has to be fixed by the parties themselves. The plaintiffs did not approach the defendant to have the market price determined and as such, there is no concluded contract between the parties to sell the property. In short, unless the price was fixed by mutual negotiation within the specified period, the plaintiffs were not entitled to purchase the property at the price now offered by them and further more, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to fix the market price at Rs. 5 per sq.ft. and it is too low. The plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Since they did not approach the defendant for fixing the market price, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of specific performance. Moreover, the value of the property would be more than Rs. 15 per sq.ft.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate Court erred in overlooking the compromise entered into between the parties as it is a completed agreement whereunder the defendant agreed to convey the properly for the market price which is ascertainable and indeed ascertained. The lower appellate Court also erred in law in overlooking that the plaintiffs expressed their readiness and willingness to take the sale deed under Ex. A-2 within a period of four months giving out the market price and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree. In the face of Exs. A-2 and A-5, the learned District Judge was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs had not acted bona fide. A-2 within a period of four months giving out the market price and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree. In the face of Exs. A-2 and A-5, the learned District Judge was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs had not acted bona fide. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants is that there is no concluded contract between the parties since the market price has not been determined by them and under the circumstance the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of specific performance. It is necessary to state that there was clear admission on the part of the defendant that a joint endorsement was entered into between the parties and ultimately, recorded in the Court to the effect that the defendant agreed to convey the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff in the respective suits on the determination of the market value within a period of six months from that date. Admittedly, the plaintiff in the respective suits had also sent a notice within the period of six months expressing their readiness and willingness to purchase the property at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq.ft. fixed by the Tahsildar, Uthangarai and offered to pay the sale price and called upon the defendant to convey the property. Curiously, the defendant having received the notice, has neither sent any reply nor complied with the demand. Once the joint endorsement was made between the parties, then, there is a duty cast on the parties to honour the same and if any party flouts the same, they cannot take advantage of their failure to comply with the same and defeat the valuable right available to the plaintiff. Prima facie, it is clear that both the Courts below have error in coming to the conclusion as if there is no concluded contact between the parties and under the circumstance, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act clearly defines that agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. A bare perusal of the joint endorsement made by the parties would only reveal that Section 29 is not attracted. A bare perusal of the joint endorsement made by the parties would only reveal that Section 29 is not attracted. Illustration (e) to Section 29 of the Act would clearly apply to the case on hand and it reads as follows : "A agrees to sell to B" 1, 000 mounds of rice at a price to be fixed by C. "As the price capable of being made certain, there is no uncertainty here to make the agreement void." It is not necessary that the plaintiff alone should approach the defendant for fixation of the price within the period of six months. The defendant also should have informed the plaintiff about the market price within the said period. The defendant having kept quiet for a period of six months and without sending any reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff, cannot now take advantage of his failure to fix the price and ultimately, take advantage of the same and deny the relief to the plaintiff. Even assuming that the Tahsildar had no right whatsoever to fix the market price of the property, by mutual discussion, both the parties could have determined the same. In spite of the communication sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant had not filed any better material to come to the conclusion pointing out any defect in the mode adopted by the revenue authorities in fixing the market price. Learned senior counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Damodhar Tukaram Mangalmurti vs. State of Bombay, wherein at the time of renewal of lease, rent to be subject to such fair and equitable enhancement as lessor shall determine. What is fair and equitable stated, it was held that jurisdiction of Court was not ousted and the lease was not void for uncertainty. The analogy in this decision can also be made applicable to the case on hand. When the price for the property is capable of fixation, it cannot be said that there is uncertainty or incapable of execution. As such Section 29 of the Contract Act also would not come to the rescue of the defendant/respondent.The lower appellate Court misinterpreted the joint endorsement made by the parties and came to the conclusion as if the price can be fixed only by mutual discussion. As such Section 29 of the Contract Act also would not come to the rescue of the defendant/respondent.The lower appellate Court misinterpreted the joint endorsement made by the parties and came to the conclusion as if the price can be fixed only by mutual discussion. When the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant quoting the market value of Rs. 5, per sq.ft., it is the bounded duty of the defendant either to agree or suggest another price. But the defendant has deliberately kept quiet for the reasons best known to him. It is not necessary that the plaintiff should be at the mercy of the defendant for fixation of the price. When the defendant was evading, necessarily, the plaintiff had to approach the revenue authorities to fix the market value and accordingly, it was fixed at Rs. 5 sq.ft. Even assuming that the market price fixed by the Tahsildar, Uthangarai was not fair, nothing prevented the defendant from adducing oral and documentary evidence for any enhancement. Now the respondents would contend that the value of the property would be Rs. 15 per sq.ft. But no material has been placed for substantiating the same. However, considering the fact that the joint endorsement was made long back and now due to efflux of time, naturally, the price of the property would have considerably enhanced and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants also. When once the plaintiff within the period fixed, has acted diligently and had offered to pay the sale consideration and called upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. But on the other hand, it was only the defendant who evaded to convey the property after getting the sale consideration. In my view, the market value of the property can be fixed at Rs. 10 per sq.ft. and the respective plaintiff can be directed to deposit the sale consideration at the said rate within a reasonable period and thereafter, the defendant can be directed to convey the property, failing, which the plaintiffs would be entitled to get conveyance through Court. In my view, the market value of the property can be fixed at Rs. 10 per sq.ft. and the respective plaintiff can be directed to deposit the sale consideration at the said rate within a reasonable period and thereafter, the defendant can be directed to convey the property, failing, which the plaintiffs would be entitled to get conveyance through Court. Moreover, the approach by the Courts below is not based on sound material and there was erroneous application of law which resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, calls for interference.For the reasons stated above, both the second appeals are allowed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs are entitled to get specific performance on their depositing the value of the schedule mentioned property at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq.ft. within a period of eight weeks from this date. On such deposit, the defendant is directed to convey the property within a period of four weeks from the date of deposit of the amount, failing which, the plaintiffs are entitled to get conveyance of the property through Court at the expense of the respondent. However, there will be no order as to costs.