P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful 1st defendant in O. S. No. 51 of 1997 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali is the appellant. The suit for specific performance is decreed as against the defendants 1 and 2, the father and son, but however, the 1st defendant alone had preferred the appeal and the 2nd defendant was impleaded as R2 in the appeal. However, no relief was granted as against the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant also is shown as the 3rd respondent in the present appeal. The suit O. S. No. 51 of 1997 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali was instituted averring as follows in the plaint : "the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- from the plaintiff on 4-3-1976 and executed a promissory note in his favour promising to repay the same together with interest at 12% p. a. He however made no payments for the debt. So the plaintiff caused the issue of a lawyer notice on 30-8-1977 demanding payment. The notice was served on 1st defendant on 3-9-1977. There was no reply. Subsequently he approached the plaintiff offering to sell his land as he was not in a position to discharge the debts. Accordingly the bargain was negotiated and the price was agreed at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the 1st defendant agreed to sell the schedule mentioned land of Ac. 1-90 cents to the plaintiff and executed an agreement of sale dated 25-9-1977. Towards the sale price on the aforesaid promissory note debt amounting to Rs. 14,244/- was adjusted and a cash of Rs. 2,756/- was paid making a total of Rs. 17,000/ -. It was agreed that the land should be got measured and for the correct extent ascertained the price should be worked out and adjustment made and the balance should be paid before the Registration of the sale deed. Time of two months had been fixed from the date of the agreement for performance. As provided in the agreement 1st defendant undertook to have the sale deed executed by himself and his son Malakonda Reddi jointly. The 1st defendant did not co-operate in getting the land measured and did not take any steps for performance. The plaintiff therefore caused the issue of lawyer notice dated 11-11-1977 calling upon the defendant for specific performance. As provided in the agreement 1st defendant undertook to have the sale deed executed by himself and his son Malakonda Reddi jointly. The 1st defendant did not co-operate in getting the land measured and did not take any steps for performance. The plaintiff therefore caused the issue of lawyer notice dated 11-11-1977 calling upon the defendant for specific performance. The notice was served on the 1st defendant on 17-11-77. A belated reply dated 7-12-77 was sent by the 1st defendant through his lawyer with all false allegations, denying the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and adjustment of pronote debt towards the sale price and the receipt of cash of Rs. 2,756/- from the plaintiff. The agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff is true and it is validly executed and attested and supported by consideration. The plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and pay the balance of the sale price that may be ascertained after measuring the land. The stand taken by the 1st defendant in his reply notice denying the agreement altogether and setting upon an earlier agreement in favour of his elder brother (third defendant) has made it necessary for the plaintiff to seek specific performance of an agreement of sale. In view of the alleged alienations in the reply notice of the 1st defendant, the third defendant is also added as a necessary and proper party to the suit. In the lawyer notice dated 11-11-1977 issued by this plaintiff it was mentioned by a slip that the pronote was cancelled and given to the 1st defendant but the pronote has been with the plaintiff as the said debt is part of the consideration for the sale agreement. As the pronote was not given to the lawyer at that time, the mistake has occurred in the notice that the pronote had been given to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is ready to pay the balance of the sale price and bear the expenses for registration for the sale deed. Therefore, the defendants may be directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and in default thereof, the sale deed may be executed by the Court. The plaintiff is ready to pay the balance of the sale price and bear the expenses for registration for the sale deed. Therefore, the defendants may be directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and in default thereof, the sale deed may be executed by the Court. " ( 2 ) THE appellant in the appeal as the 1st defendant in the suit filed a written statement with the following allegations : "this defendant had borrowed from the plaintiffs father and became indebted to him in a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -. The plaintiffs father took a double bond in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 12,000/ -. This defendant repaid the amount now and then which came to about Rs. 5,350/ -. The plaintiffs father is a seasoned litigant and has taken several thumb impression papers from this defendant. This defendant is also indebted to others including his brother Noti Subba Reddy. For discharging the debts this defendant sold Ac. 0-63 cents in Items I and II and Ac. 0-75 cents in Item III of the plaint schedule property and Ac. 0-70 cents in S. No. 763 and Ac. 0-50 cents in S. No. 735/1 of Annavaram village in favour of his brother. Notu Subba Reddy on a stamped agreement of sale dated 20-8-77 for Rs. 16,500/- and delivered possession of the same on the date of the agreement. After selling the property aforesaid, this defendant went to the plaintiffs father for paying the balance under the promissory note and return of the thumb impression papers. The plaintiffs father was evading. On or about the last week of August, 1977, this defendant approached the plaintiffs father through Iska Venaktarama Reddy and Tippareddi Venkata Krishna Reddy of Zaladanki. The date given as 4-3-76 in para 5 of the reply notice is a mistake as the same represents the date of the promissory note and inadvertent type error. At that time namely last week of August 1977 the plaintiffs father admitted the payment of Rs. 5,350/- by this defendant to him but showed several other unfilled thumb impressions on white papers containing the defendants thumb impressions and stated that unless this defendant pays Rs. 12,000/- with interest at Rs. 5/- per hundred per mensum; he would not receive this amount or return the blank thumb impression papers. 5,350/- by this defendant to him but showed several other unfilled thumb impressions on white papers containing the defendants thumb impressions and stated that unless this defendant pays Rs. 12,000/- with interest at Rs. 5/- per hundred per mensum; he would not receive this amount or return the blank thumb impression papers. The said mediators and this defendant informed Sri K. Yanadi Reddy of Kavali and he sent for the plaintiffs father. The plaintiffs father came during first week of November, 1977 and in his presence the said Yanadi Reddy and Karatham Ramachandra Reddy of Bitragunta, the plaintiffs father admitted the payments made by this defendant and is having thumb impression papers also and stated he would consult the plaintiff herein and informed them about the same in about a week. Subsequently the plaintiffs father did not turn up and sent a notice in the name of the plaintiff on 11-11-77. This defendant has sent a reply thereto on 7-12-77. This defendant submits that this agreement of sale is not true and this defendant never executed the same. In case it is made out that the agreement of sale contains the thumb impressions of this defendant the same must have been concocted as blank impression papers. No cash was paid by the plaintiff to this defendant nor any such agreement of sale. This defendant questions the capacity of the plaintiff and his father to lend a sum of Rs. 12,000/- or purchase properties for Rs. 17,000/ -. The value of the plaint schedule property is exaggerated by the plaintiff. This defendant denies the issue of any notice on 30-8-77. This defendant to his misfortune has become a chronic addict to drinking which eventually landed himself and his family in debts. It is not true to say that this defendant was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land on the date of the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. It is also false to say that this defendant undertook to get the sale deed executed by his son second defendant also. This defendant never did so nor is the second defendant bound by the agreement of sale. The plaintiff cannot file the suit against the second defendant who admittedly is not a party to the alleged agreement. It is also false to say that this defendant undertook to get the sale deed executed by his son second defendant also. This defendant never did so nor is the second defendant bound by the agreement of sale. The plaintiff cannot file the suit against the second defendant who admittedly is not a party to the alleged agreement. The plaintiff and his father appeared to have brought about the agreement of sale with a view to forestall a defence on the part of this defendant under Act VII of 1977. The suit is vexatious and fraudulent attempt on the part of the plaintiff and his father to unjustly enrich themselves at the expenses of this defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled to question the agreement of sale in favour of the third defendant, second and third defendants are not proper or necessary parties to the suit. " ( 3 ) AN adoption Memo was filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants and on the strength of the above pleadings, initially, the following issues were settled : 1. Whether the entire plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st defendant and the agreement of sale dated 25-9-77 in respect thereof is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendants? 2. Whether the agreement of sale dated 20-8-77 by 1st defendant in favour of third defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance and if so, against which of the defendants? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto, additional issues were framed as follows : 1. Whether the plaintiffs father took a double bond i. e. , pronote deed 4-3-86 from the 1st defendant for Rs. 12,000/- in the name of the plaintiff by lending Rs. 6,000/- only? 2. Whether the 1st defendant paid Rs. 5,350/- to the father of the plaintiff towards pronote dated 4-3-76? 3. Whether partition between defendants 1 and 3 under Exs. B1 and B9 is true? 4. Whether defendants 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the suit? ( 5 ) IN the trial Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. A1 to A13 were marked and on behalf of the defendants D. Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked. 4. Whether defendants 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the suit? ( 5 ) IN the trial Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. A1 to A13 were marked and on behalf of the defendants D. Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had negatived the relief as against the 3rd defendant, the divided brother and had granted the decree as against defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, the father and son. Aggrieved by the same, the father alone had preferred the appeal and the 2nd defendant had not preferred any appeal and thus so far as the judgment and decree relating to 2nd defendant are concerned, they became final. ( 6 ) SRI Srinivas, learned Counsel representing the appellant the 1st defendant in the suit, had made the following submissions. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel had taken me through the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff and also on behalf of the defendants and had contended that the trial Court had adopted a double standard in appreciating the evidence by relying upon the interested witnesses in the case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff and disbelieving the evidence of certain witnesses on behalf of the defendants on the said ground. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the different recitals in Ex. A4 and had commented that even at a glance Ex. A4 cannot be believed inasmuch as to adjust the lines, space had been adjusted in such a fashion and this aspect can be clearly understood in view of the larger space left between the lines and also the space left between last lines and the thumb impression. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 7 and had commented that in view of the fact that the deviation between Exs. D1 and D3 had been believed and relief was negatived as against D3, the evidence of D. W. 2, D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 6 may not be very relevant. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel also contended that as against the negativing of the relief against D3, no appeal had been preferred. D1 and D3 had been believed and relief was negatived as against D3, the evidence of D. W. 2, D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 6 may not be very relevant. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel also contended that as against the negativing of the relief against D3, no appeal had been preferred. The learned Counsel also pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence and had commented that the defendants version should have been believed. Learned counsel further contended that P. W. 2 is none other than the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and such evidence should have been rejected on the ground that he is a highly interested witness in the case to depose in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the 2nd defendant was a major son, though an undivided son of the 1st defendant and there is no dispute that he is not a party to the contract and hence the relief for specific performance ought not have been granted as against the 2nd defendant inasmuch as he was a major even by the said time. Ultimately, the learned Counsel had concluded that at any rate there are several discrepancies and contradictions and especially, relating to the financial capacity of the plaintiff in this regard and hence it is a case where the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and thus the discretionary relief of specific performance should have been negatived to such a party. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel would rely on a decision of this Court in C. Panduranga Rao v. V. Shyamala Rao (1999) 4 Andh LT 270 : (1999 AIHC 3715) (DB) to support his contentions. ( 10 ) SRI Nutalapati Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent-plaintiff had contended that the totality of ththe circumstances may have to be considered in a suit of this nature and the trial Court, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as against D1 and D2. The learned Counsel also contended that though the 2nd defendant is not a party to A4, there is a recital in A4 that the 1st defendant-father would get the document registered even by getting him to join the execution of such a document. The learned Counsel also contended that though the 2nd defendant is not a party to A4, there is a recital in A4 that the 1st defendant-father would get the document registered even by getting him to join the execution of such a document. The learned counsel also had taken me through paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the trial Court and also the recitals of the agreement Ex. A4. The learned Counsel commented that there is elaborate discussion of both oral and documentary evidence and it is not a question of coming with unclean hands and at the best, the trial Court had commented about the capacity of the plaintiff which may not be much relevant for the present purpose since the crucial question is whether Exs. A1 and A4 are to be believed or not. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Parakunnan Veetill Josephs Son Mathew v. Nedumbara Kuruvilas Son, AIR 1987 SC 2328 2328. ( 11 ) HEARD both the counsel at length. The points for consideration in this appeal are as follows : 1. Whether the 1st respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance which had been granted as against the appellant - 1st defendant and also his major son, the 2nd defendant in the suit - 2nd respondent in the appeal? 2. To what relief? ( 12 ) POINT (a) : as can be seen from the trial Court judgment it is no doubt true that several issues and additional issues had been framed and here is elaborate discussion. But, however, in the light of Ex. B1, inasmuch as specific finding had been recorded relating to the partition between D1 and D3 and the relief had been negatived as against D3, much of the evidence let in, like the evidence of D. W. 2, D. W. 3, D. W. 4 and D. W. 6 i. e. the scribe of Ex. B1, the attestors of Ex. B1, the son of the 3rd respondent respectively, may not be relevant for discussion in the present appeal and the plaintiff also had not questioned the same nor had advanced any arguments in this regard. It is the case of the plaintiff 1st respondent in the appeal that the appellant 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. B1, the son of the 3rd respondent respectively, may not be relevant for discussion in the present appeal and the plaintiff also had not questioned the same nor had advanced any arguments in this regard. It is the case of the plaintiff 1st respondent in the appeal that the appellant 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for his family necessity and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 4-3-1976, marked as Ex. A1. Since the appellant-1st defendant had not repaid the said amount, the plaintiff, who was examined as P. W. 1, had no other go except to issue a notice and the said office copy is marked as Ex. A2. The 1st defendant received the notice on 3-9-1976 and Ex. A3 is the postal acknowledgment and he had not given any reply. In view of the stand taken by the 1st defendant denying the execution of Ex. A1, the plaintiff had examined P. Ws. 2 to 4 to prove the execution and the passing of consideration. Madala Krishnaiah, P. W. 2 is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and he had deposed that the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex. A1 and he had attested the same. P. W. 2, in fact, had narrated the details. P. W. 3 is the scribe of Ex. A1 and P. W. 4 is another attestor of Ex. A1. Thus, by adducing clear evidence, Ex. A1 transaction was proved by the 1st respondent-plaintiff. It is no doubt the contention of the 1st defendant that he borrowed only Rs. 6,000/- from the father of the plaintiff, who was examined as P. W. 6. But, he had obtained a promissory note from him for Rs. 12,000/ -. No doubt, D. W. 1 had narrated several details, but, however, all the said details had been well appreciated by the trial Court. It is no doubt true that the trial Court, relating to the capacity of the plaintiff to lend amount, expressed some doubt in view of the stand taken by the plaintiff that he has got his own cash of Rs. 30,000/- which was given to him by his grand-mother. It is no doubt true that the trial Court, relating to the capacity of the plaintiff to lend amount, expressed some doubt in view of the stand taken by the plaintiff that he has got his own cash of Rs. 30,000/- which was given to him by his grand-mother. This aspect may not be very much relevant in the light of the fact that it is not the case of appellant-1st defendant that the family of the plaintiff has no capacity at all and in fact, he himself had deposed that the father of the plaintiff had lent some amount and no doubt, his stand is that Ex. A1 is supported by consideration only up to some extent and not supported by total consideration as specified in Ex. A1, D. W. 7 had deposed that the 1st defendant borrowed Rs. 1,300 from him about seven or eight years ago and executed a promissory note in his favour and by the date he borrowed the said amount, he got separated from his brother, the 3rd defendant and after two or three years. D1 discharged the debts due to him by selling his land to D3 and D3 paid the amount due to him under the promissory note by the 1st defendant. D. W. 5 is the mediator and the learned Counsel for the appellant, no doubt, made elaborate submissions on the ground that this witness is also an independent witness, but while appreciating his evidence, double standard had been adopted by the trial Court. D. W. 5 had deposed that he knows D1 to D3 and the plaintiff and his father and in the year 1977 D. W. 1 came to his house and informed him that he borrowed Rs. 6,000/- from the father of the plaintiff and that he paid Rs. 5,000/- and odd to him and that he had to pay the balance and that the father of the plaintiff was demanding Rs. 12,000/- with interest. He further deposed that at that time T. Gopalreddy @ Venkata Krishnareddy was also present. They had gone to the house of the father of the plaintiff and he had advised the father of the plaintiff to receive the balance after deducting the payment made by D. W. 1 with reasonable interest and return the promissory note to D. W. 1. They had gone to the house of the father of the plaintiff and he had advised the father of the plaintiff to receive the balance after deducting the payment made by D. W. 1 with reasonable interest and return the promissory note to D. W. 1. But however, the father of the plaintiff had not agreed for the said proposal and he had shown the printed promissory note executed by D. W. 1 and also the blank white papers with thumb impressions and the father of the plaintiff told him that he would file a suit against D. W. 1 in case he failed to pay the amount and at that time when the father of the plaintiff showed blank white papers with thumb impressions, D. W. 1 was present. Then they approached Yanadireddy, the then M. L. A. of Kavali and informed him about the disputes. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that one Martula Chennakesavareddi is a distant relation of D. W. 1 and he had also further deposed that he had not given any advice to P. W. 1 to give any Police complaint against the father of the plaintiff or to issue any notice to him. No doubt, he had denied the suggestion that he had gone to the father of the plaintiff along with D. W. 1 to effect mediation and that the father of the plaintiff had not shown him any blank papers with thumb impressions and that he was deposing falsely. He also denied the suggestion that he was supporting the 1st defendant due to village politics. ( 13 ) AS can be seen from the nature of the evidence, this evidence is of general nature and strong reliance is placed on this witness mainly for the purpose to show that the defence taken by the 1st defendant is more probable and hence, the relief has to be negatived to the 1st respondent-plaintiff. ( 14 ) THE 1st defendant had examined himself as D. W. 1 and he had deposed his case in detail. The witness also was cross-examined at length. He had deposed about the creditors under Exs. B3 to B8 and also relating to Ex. B1 and relating to the division. These aspects may not be much relevant. No doubt, he had taken specific stand that he did not borrow Rs. 12,000/-, but borrowed only Rs. The witness also was cross-examined at length. He had deposed about the creditors under Exs. B3 to B8 and also relating to Ex. B1 and relating to the division. These aspects may not be much relevant. No doubt, he had taken specific stand that he did not borrow Rs. 12,000/-, but borrowed only Rs. 6,000/- from the father of the plaintiff. No doubt, the same objection was taken relating to the admissibility of Ex. B1, but, however, in C. R. P. No. 3767 of 1982 it was treated as unregistered family arrangement and it was held that it does not require any registration and this aspect may not be much relevant for the reason that the relief had been negatived as against D3. Hence, except the evidence of DW 1 and D. W. 5 and also D. W. 7 to some extent, the evidence of other witnesses may not be much relevant in view of the fact that the relief was negatived as against D3. ( 15 ) NOW, coming to the evidence of PWs 1 to 8, PW 1 is the son, PW 6 is the father and both of them had deposed in detail about both A1 and A4 transactions. PW 1 specifically deposed that D 2 is the undivided son of D1 and D1 borrowed Rs. 12,000/- for his family expenses only. It is pertinent to note that it is not the stand taken by the 2nd defendant that the said debt is not binding on him or it was not borrowed for any joint family necessity or any Avyavaharika debts tainted with any illegality or immorality. But, inasmuch as a finding has been recorded that Ex. A1 is, in fact, supported by consideration, it cannot be taken that Ex. A4 is also supported by consideration and the said consideration is in relation to the joint family paid to the 1st defendant, the father and hence it is needless to say that it is binding on the son, the 2nd defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant had not preferred any appeal. The 1st defendant is taking a stand to the effect that inasmuch as the 2nd defendant was a major even by that time. Ex. A4 is not binding on him since he had not joined the execution of the said Ex. A4. The 2nd defendant had not preferred any appeal. The 1st defendant is taking a stand to the effect that inasmuch as the 2nd defendant was a major even by that time. Ex. A4 is not binding on him since he had not joined the execution of the said Ex. A4. This stand taken by the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that the judgment and decree as against the 2nd defendant are concerned, they became final. The 1st respondent, representing the joint family, had contracted the debt and had received consideration under Ex. A1, which forms the major portion of the consideration in relation to Ex. A4. It is not in dispute that they are the members of joint family and though the 2nd defendant was a major even by that time, since the transactions are for the sake of the joint family contracted by the father, unless it is shown otherwise that such transactions are not binding on the son by letting in clear evidence, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained in this regard. At any rate, as already stated supra, the 2nd defendant has not chosen to file an appeal and it is the 1st defendant alone who is agitating the matter. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff, as PW 1, has narrated all the details and had spoken to the agreement of sale and also the total cost of the land Rs. 19,000/ -. In the presence of himself, his father and Madala Krishnaiah Naidu, Vella Narasaiah, Ravipati Yenadi Naidu the agreement of sale Ex. A4 was executed and Ravipati Yenadi Naidu and Yella Narasiah attested Ex. A4 and D1 had put his thumb impression. Madala Krishanaiah Naidu is the scribe of Ex. A4 and it was agreed that the land would be measured at the time of registration. He further deposed that at the time of Ex. A4 he paid cash of Rs. 2,756/- and it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 14,244/- under Ex. A1 should go as consideration under Ex. A4. It was also agreed that the balance of Rs. 2,000/- had to be paid at the time of registration and two months time has been stipulated for executing the regular sale deed. A4 he paid cash of Rs. 2,756/- and it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 14,244/- under Ex. A1 should go as consideration under Ex. A4. It was also agreed that the balance of Rs. 2,000/- had to be paid at the time of registration and two months time has been stipulated for executing the regular sale deed. PW 1 also deposed that he had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but, in spite of several demands, the defendants were not interested in completing the transaction and he also further deposed that he is ready and willing to deposit the balance of sale consideration in the Court. No doubt, in the cross-examination, an attempt was made to show that it is PW 6 who is behind this litigation and several details had been elicited relating to the family of the plaintiff. But, however, in the cross examination, as far as Exs. A 1 and A4 transactions are concerned, nothing serious had been elicited from these witnesses except, most probably, in relation to the amount given to him by his grand mother. PW 2 is the brother-in-law of PW. 1 and he had attested Ex. A1. He had supported P. W. 1 in all material particulars relating to Ex. A1 and the trial Court had discussed the evidence of P. W. 2 in detail and had arrived at a conclusion that merely because he is a relation to P. W. 1, his evidence cannot be ignored. Apart from this witness, P. W. 3 is the scribe of Ex. A1 and he also supported the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in this regard. P. W. 4 is another attestor of Ex. A1 and thus by the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4, both the execution and the passing of consideration under Ex. A1 had been clearly established and as already discussed supra, this amount was borrowed by the 1st defendant for his joint family necessity only. P. W. 5 is an attestor of Ex. A4 and he had spoken to several details relating to his attestation and also the execution of Ex. A4 by the 1st defendant. In the cross-examination, except putting certain suggestions, there are no serious contradictions so as to disbelieve this witness. As already referred to supra. P. W. 5 is an attestor of Ex. A4 and he had spoken to several details relating to his attestation and also the execution of Ex. A4 by the 1st defendant. In the cross-examination, except putting certain suggestions, there are no serious contradictions so as to disbelieve this witness. As already referred to supra. P. W. 6 is none other than the father of plaintiff and naturally his evidence is in total support of the case of the plaintiff P. W. 1 P. W. 7 is another important witness, the attestor of Ex. A4 and he had clearly deposed about the execution and also the passing of consideration. He had spoken to about the attestation by him and P. W. 5. In the cross- examination, except putting certain suggestions, nothing serious had been elicited. Apart from these witnesses, there is the evidence of P. W. 8, finger print expert and this evidence may not be very relevant in the light of the stand taken by the 1st defendant, but, however, this evidence also was taken into consideration by the trial Court and had ultimately decreed the suit as against the 1st and 2nd defendants. ( 17 ) IT is no doubt true that the relief for specific performance is a discretionary relief. From the overall evidence available on record, except that the plaintiff by himself has no capacity to lend the amount, there is no other essential aspect which can be taken into consideration so as to disbelieve either Ex. A1 or Ex. A4 transactions. The trial Court, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at the correct conclusion that basing on Ex. B1 it was held that D3 is the divided brother and hence the relief cannot be granted being a non party to the contract and as far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, though a major son, he being the member of the joint family of which the 1st defendant father is also a manager and the debt having been borrowed for the joint family necessity, the trial Court had arrived at the correct conclusion in granting the relief of specific performance as against the 1st and 2nd defendants only. It is needless to point out that the 2nd defendant had not preferred any appeal and it is peculiar that the 1st defendant is taking a stand that the 2nd defendant, a non party to the contract, is not bound by the contract. ( 18 ) IN Parakunnans case (supra) while dealing with the relief of specific performance and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Apex Court held: "s. 20. Preserves judicial discretion to Courts as to decreeing specific performance. The Court should meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. The motive behind the litigation should also enter into the judicial verdict. The Court should take care to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff. " ( 19 ) IN Panduranga Raos case (1999 AIHC 3715) it was held that the relief of specific performance is an equitable relief and it is within the discretion of the Court and of course, the discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law and the party is not entitled to the specific performance as a matter of course even though the execution of the sale agreement is either admitted or proved and he must, therefore, show the equity in himself before seeking the equitable relief of specific performance. ( 20 ) THE principles relating to the granting or refusing the relief of specific performance are well settled and they need not be repeated again. Here is a case where the father had contracted the debt for the joint family necessity under Ex. A1 and that forms part of the sale consideration under Ex. A4 agreement of sale and hence these are the transactions in relation to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2 in this view of the matter, in the light of the general principles of Hindu Law, it is needless to point out that the trial Court had exercised the discretion properly in granting the relief of specific performance. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration and apart from it the evidence let in by the plaintiff in this regard is overwhelming and also convincing and hence at any stretch of imagination Exs. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration and apart from it the evidence let in by the plaintiff in this regard is overwhelming and also convincing and hence at any stretch of imagination Exs. A 1 and A4 cannot be disbelieved and hence the findings recorded by the trial Court are hereby affirmed since those findings are based on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 21 ) POINT (b) : in the light of the foregoing discussion, especially in view of the fact that the major son, the 2nd defendant, a non-party to the contract had not preferred any appeal at all, I am of the considered opinion that viewed from any angle, the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.