B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 22-4-1988 in O. S. No. 28 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, defendant-1 (Ruttala Simhachalam) has filed this appeal. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 (Chundru bhimeswara Jagannadham and Sabbella savitri) are plaintiffs in O. S. No. 28/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram. The appellant herein and Respondent-3 (Somireddi Ramulu) are Defendant-1 and defendant-2 in the said suit. The parties hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979 executed by defendant-1 in favour of 1st plaintiff in respect of Ac. 1-62 cents in Sy. No. 281/3 situated in Pithapuram Village, East Godavari district or alternatively a decree for refund of money with interest at 12 per cent from the date of suit till the date of payment against Defendant-1 and against the plaint schedule property in the hands of defendant-2 and to pass such other relief as the Court deems it fit in the circumstances of the case. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Defendant-1 is the owner of the land bearing S. No. 281/3 admeasuring Ac. 1. 62 cents adjoining Kakinada - Pithapuram road (hereinafter referred to as the land) and it is offered by him for sale to 1st plaintiff who agreed to purchase it for Rs. 27,540/ -. The first plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- towards sale consideration to Defendant-1 who executed an agreement on the said date agreeing to execute a registered sale deed within three months in favour of the 1st plaintiff or his nominee. The plaintiffs purchased the land to start a factory jointly. As Defendant-1 failed to execute the registered sale deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979, the 1st plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 2. 6. 1982 demanding compliance of the terms of the agreement. Defendant-1 gave a reply disputing the agreement of sale and setting up a sale in favour of Defendant-2 and delivery of possession of the land also to defendant-2. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979. Defendant-1 filed written statement disputing the agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979 in favour of 1st plaintiff. She took the plea that she borrowed rs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979. Defendant-1 filed written statement disputing the agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979 in favour of 1st plaintiff. She took the plea that she borrowed rs. 10,000/- from the 1st plaintiff promising to repay the same at 12 per cent interest and that the 1st plaintiff obtained her thumb impression on some papers and made use of them to concoct the agreement of sale. She also took the plea that she sold Ac. 2. 62 cents of land in Sy. No. 283/3 under an agreement of sale dated 1. 3. 1979 to defendant-2 at the rate of Rs. 12. 500/- per acre and also received an advance of rs. 20,000/- towards sale consideration on the date of the agreement and subsequently she received Rs. 5,000/- on 7. 5. 1980 and made endorsement to that effect on the said agreement of sale. Defendant-2 filed written statement contending that Defendant-1 agreed to sell Ac. 2-62 cents in Sy. No. 281/3 under an agreement of sale dated 2. 1. 1979 and received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on the date of agreement. He also contended that he took possession of the land on the date of agreement and paid Rs. 7,850/- towards balance of sale consideration and obtained endorsement of Defendant-1 on the agreement of sale dated 1. 3. 1979. Basing on the above pleadings, the lower Court settled the following issues and additional issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit agreement to sell is valid and binding on the defendants? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the suit agreement to sell? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the alternative relief or refund of the advance amount as pleaded in the plaint? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages as claimed, and if so, to what extent? (5) To what relief?additional issues: (1) Whether the circumstances pleaded by defendant No. l were present for getting the suit documents? (2) Whether the plaintiff has got knowledge prior agreement by the date of agreement as pleaded by defendant No. 1? (3) Whether prior agreement is binding on plaintiff? ( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-5 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, dws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. (3) Whether prior agreement is binding on plaintiff? ( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-5 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, dws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-7 were marked On considering the evidence and on hearing learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants, the lower Court believed Ex. A-1 agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979 while disbelieving ex. B-2 agreement of sale dated 1. 3. 1979 set up by the defendants and granted decree for specific performance of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale and directed the defendants to execute sale deed in respect of 62 cents of the land which is lett over after acquisition of one acre by the Government, within one month from the date of judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, defendant-1 has filed this appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant/ defendant 1 contends that the Appellant/ defendant-1 is an illiterate woman and hence the burden lies on Respondents-1 and 21 plaintiffs to prove that the Appellant/ defendant-1 put her thumb impression on ex. A-1 agreement of sale after understanding the contents of it. In simple, his contention is the- mind of the Appellant/ Defendant-1 that she intended to sell the land to respondent-1 and 2/piaintiffs, did not accompany her thumb, impression. He refers the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in support of his contention that the contents of Ex. A-1 were never put to the Appellant/ Defendant-1 while obtaining her thumb impression thereon. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent-1 and 21 plaintiffs that the Appellant/defendant-1 not being a pardanisheen lady was in the habit of conducting her own business and so it was for the Appellant/ Defendant-1 to prove that her thumb impression on Ex. A-1 agreement of sale was due to misrepresentation. In support of his contentions he relies on the following decisions - Mt. Mahadei v. Ishwari, AIR 1938 Oudh 152, kulsumun-nisa v. Ahmadi Begum, AIR 1972 allahabad 219, and Hans Raji v. Yasodanand, air 1996 SC 761 . ( 6 ) THE points that arise for consideration in this appeal are that: (I) Whether Ex. In support of his contentions he relies on the following decisions - Mt. Mahadei v. Ishwari, AIR 1938 Oudh 152, kulsumun-nisa v. Ahmadi Begum, AIR 1972 allahabad 219, and Hans Raji v. Yasodanand, air 1996 SC 761 . ( 6 ) THE points that arise for consideration in this appeal are that: (I) Whether Ex. A-1 agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979 is true, valid and binding; (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale Ex. A-1 or for alternative relief of a money decree for refund of purchase money in the circumstances of the case? ( 7 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the extent of land covered under Ex. A-1 agreement of sale is Ac. 1-62 cents and out of it, Government has acquired one acre and paid compensation to the Appellant/ defendant-1. The extent of land leftover is only 62 cents. Respondent-1/1 st plaintiff filed his affidavit to the effect that the plaintiffs were forced to relinquish their claim for specific performance for the acquired portion of land in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of Specific relief Act and confine their relief to an extent of 62 cents. It is also to be noted that the lower Court did not believe Ex. B-2 agreement of sale-dated 1. 3. 1979 said to be executed by the Appellant/ Defendant-1 in favour of Respondent-3/defendant-2. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, Defendant-2 did not choose to file any appeal questioning the findings of the trial Court recorded on the validity of Ex. B-2 agreement of sale. Since the appeal is filed by Defendant-1 only, the point required to be considered in the present appeal would be; whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the validity of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale is legal and proper. ( 9 ) AT the trial two witnesses were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Ex. A-1 is the agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979. Ex. A-2 is the office copy of the registered notice got issued by the 1st plaintiff to Defendant-1. Ex. A-3 is the reply notice dated 11. 8. 1982 sent by Defendant-1. Ex. A-4 is the encumbrance certificate dated 20-8-1979 for the land in Sy. No. 281/l (old) for the period 1. 1. 1975 to 13. 8. 1979. Ex. Ex. A-2 is the office copy of the registered notice got issued by the 1st plaintiff to Defendant-1. Ex. A-3 is the reply notice dated 11. 8. 1982 sent by Defendant-1. Ex. A-4 is the encumbrance certificate dated 20-8-1979 for the land in Sy. No. 281/l (old) for the period 1. 1. 1975 to 13. 8. 1979. Ex. A-5 is the copy of the field plan of land bearing Sy. No. 281 (old ). On behalf of defendants, DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-7 were marked. DW. 1 is Defendant-1. DW. 2 is defendant-2. DW. 3 is the attestor of Ex. B-2 agreement of sale dated 1. 3. 1979 executed by Defendant-1 in favour of Defendant-2. He is also the attestor of Ex. B-4 endorsement dated 7. 4. 1980 on Ex. B-2 agreement of sale with regard to the payment of Rs. 5,000/- to defendant-1 by Defendant-2 towards the balance sale consideration. DW. 4 is the scribe of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale dated 10-11-1979. We make ourselves clear at this stage that one of the attestors of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale was examined by the plaintiffs as P. W. 2 and whereas the scribe of ex. A-1 agreement of sale was examined by the defendants as DW. 4. Admittedly, defendant-1 (DW. l) is an illiterate woman. It is the contention of the Appellant/ defendant-1 that since she is an illiterate and ignorant woman, burden lies on respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the mind of the executant accompanied her thumb impression. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions - Kwamin bassayin v. Bendentu-II, AIR 1937 PC 274, nathu v. Anandilal, AIR 1953 MB 32 (Indor bench), and Shivamma v. Abdur Rahman, air 1953 (Hyd) 25, for the said proposition of law. In the first cited decision, the Privy council held that where a person not knowing English has affixed this mark to a document written in English language, the onus to prove that the document was properly explained and interpreted to the person affixing his mark so as to make him understand its true import is on the party relying on the document. In the second decision Indore Bench of Madhya Bharat high Court held that a duty is cast on the Courts to keep in mind the strict rule of law in respect of onus where the executants happened to be ignorant and illiterate. Mere illiteracy - without ignorance - will, of course, not be enough. A rustic from a village both ignorant and illiterate is in a position of special disadvantage and is likely to be dominated by the will of the shrewd literate man carrying on his business in the town. In the third cited-decision, our High Court held that heavy burden lies on the party who placed reliance on the document executed by a blind and illiterate woman to prove that she had not only agreed to sell but she knew what was being written and that the document was executed in accordance with the terms of agreement. ( 10 ) FROM all that has been stated above, it follows that a duty is cast on the courts to keep in mind the strict rule of law in respect of onus where the executants happens to be ignorant and illiterate. In such a case, it must be proved that thumb impression was given on the document by the executant after learning the contents, which had been explained to him or her. In the case before us, the Appellant/defendant-1 is an illiterate. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent-1 and 2/ plaintiffs that the appellant/defendant-1 not being a pardanashin lady but illiterate woman in the habit of conducting her own business, and therefore the above rulings do not apply to the facts of the case on hand, in this connection, he placed reliance on the following decisions. In the first cited decision a woman not being a pardanashin lady but illiterate woman in the habit of conducting her own business admitted execution of a document but alleged, that she put her thumb impression on the document through mis-representation. She admitted that she was negligent in not having the document read out to her. In those circumstances, it was held that the burden of proof was on her to show that the document was executed under fraud or misrepresentation. She admitted that she was negligent in not having the document read out to her. In those circumstances, it was held that the burden of proof was on her to show that the document was executed under fraud or misrepresentation. In the second cited decision the Allahabad High Court held that the rule of special protection to a pardanashin, old and illiterate woman should not be applied inflexibly in each and every case and the rule should be applied in the light of the facts of each case. In the third cited decision the Supreme Court held that an illiterate harijan woman serving in railways who failed to show that she was suffering from any ignorance or illiteracy or mental deficiency could not be compared to a pardanashin lady. ( 11 ) AS regards document taken from pardanashin woman, the Court has to ascertain that the party executing them has been a free agent and has duly informed of what she is about. The reason for the rule is that the ordinary presumption that a person understands the document to which he has affixed his name does not apply in the case of a pardanashin woman. The burden of proof usually always rests upon a person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardanashin lady to establish that the said document was entered into by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. It should be established that it was not only her physical act but also her mental act. The burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and that she understood it, but also by other evidence direct and circumstantial. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Karbajan kaur v. Kuer Janganbha Raj, AIR 1963 sc 1203 , that the ruling involved for the protection of pardanashin lady should not be contused with other doctrine such as fraud, undue influence which applies to all persons whether they are pardanashin ladies or not. ( 12 ) IT is the case of the Appellant/ defendant-1 that Respondent-1/ Plaintiff no. 1 obtained her thumb impression representing that the document related to her borrowing Rs. l 0,000/- from him. Admittedly, the Appellant/defendant-1 is an illiterate woman. Therefore, the burden lies on Respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs to prove that she affixed her thumb impression on ex. ( 12 ) IT is the case of the Appellant/ defendant-1 that Respondent-1/ Plaintiff no. 1 obtained her thumb impression representing that the document related to her borrowing Rs. l 0,000/- from him. Admittedly, the Appellant/defendant-1 is an illiterate woman. Therefore, the burden lies on Respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs to prove that she affixed her thumb impression on ex. A-1 agreement of sale with the knowledge of the contents therein. It is argued by the learned Counsel for Respondent-1 and 2/ plaintiffs that the Appellant/defendant-1 has been carrying on her own affairs and therefore she is presumed to have knowledge of the contents of the document when she affixed her thumb impression thereon. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any merit in this contention. It has to be noted that Ex. A-1 agreement of sale is dated 10-1-1979. As per the terms of the agreement, the appellant/ Defendant-1 was to execute a sale deed within three months. There appears to be no notice by respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs demanding the appellant/ defendant-1 soon after the expiry of three months period, as stipulated in the agreement. The notice was issued to defendants on 2. 6. 1982 i. e. , after a lapse of two years three months of the expiry of the date stipulated in the agreement. Ex. A-2 is the office copy of the notice. Had the agreement of sale was true, the plaintiffs would not have kept quite for such a long period without taking steps soon after the expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement. In these circumstances, the burden lies heavily on the plaintiffs to prove that the appellant/defendant-1 put her thumb impression on Ex. A-1 agreement of sale with the full knowledge of the contents therein. Rather it can be said that the plaintiffs have to prove that the mind of appellant/ defendant-1 accompanied her thumb impression. P. W. 2 is the attestor of Ex. A-1. He did not say that the contents of Ex. A-1 were put to the Defendant-1 before obtaining her impression thereon. For better appreciation, we reproduce the evidence of p. W. 2 in his own words which is thus: " I belong to Kakinada. I know P. W. I. I know the execution of the agreement of the sa1e executed by D1 in favour of P. W. I. I attested. It is Ex. A1. For better appreciation, we reproduce the evidence of p. W. 2 in his own words which is thus: " I belong to Kakinada. I know P. W. I. I know the execution of the agreement of the sa1e executed by D1 in favour of P. W. I. I attested. It is Ex. A1. She agreed to sell ac. 1-62 cents of land to P. W. I. P. W. I paid rs. 10,000/- as an advance to D1. D1 affixed her thumb impression on Ex. A1. The sa1e price is Rs. 27,540/ -. D1 brought another attestor. She A1so brought the scribe. A1 was executed in the premises of Registrar s office, pithapuram. Another attestor attested on ex. A1. Ex. A1 was executed before me. D1 gave instructions to the scribe for executing ex. A1. It was read once. Cross-examination by D1: I am working in the Orienta1 Insurance Company at Kakinada. 1st plaintiff A1so was residing in Kakinada and A1so was residing in the same street. I do not know the 2nd plaintiff. P. W. I brought me from Kakinada on the date of suit. P. W. 1 said that he is going to Pithapuram for executing a document in his favour and he asked me to follow. I don t have any business on that day. We both came to Sub-Registrar s Office. D1 gave document to the scribe. P. W. 1 gave a plan to the scribe. No ta1ks held before me. They ta1ked something about land purchase but I don t remember exactly. It is not true to say that the suit document was executed at the registrar s Office by the 1st defendant in favour of 1st plaintiff. It is not true that it did not happen before me. It is not true that I helped P. W. 1 to correct document. " ( 13 ) IT is explicit from the evidence of p. W. 2 that he did not speak of the contents of Ex. A-1 being put to the knowledge of the executant i. e. , the appellant/defendant-1 before obtaining her thumb impression thereon. Even the 1st plaintiff while being examined as P. W. 1 did not say that the contents of the document were brought to the knowledge of the executant i. e. , appellant/ defendant-1. DW. 4 T. Someswar Rao is a scribe of Ex. A-1 agreement of sa1e. Even the 1st plaintiff while being examined as P. W. 1 did not say that the contents of the document were brought to the knowledge of the executant i. e. , appellant/ defendant-1. DW. 4 T. Someswar Rao is a scribe of Ex. A-1 agreement of sa1e. It is his positive evidence that the executant of ex. A-1 did not affix her thumb impression in his presence. We feel it apposite to refer the evidence of DW. 4 in his own words which is thus:"i am the scribe of Ex. A1. Then I was working as a clerk in Motor Workers Union office. I have drafted the document at the motor Workers Office. The executant of this document did not affix her thumb impression before myself. The first attestor Na1an venkataramana attested in my presence after the thumb impression of the executant was put elsewhere and brought to me. The second attestor did not attest before me. At the time of attestation by first attestor the executant was not present before me. Both parties except the executant came to me. I have not drafted the document in the registrar s Office. Cross by plaintiffs :both parties means the person in whose favour Ex. A1 was executed and the person who executed the document Ex. A1. Na1am Venkataramana, bhavam Doragaru of Chitrada and other persons I do not remember executant s son came. He was a major then. He gave a brief facts of the document. I know her son. 3 people were purchasing people. First attestor was present from the beginning. Son of the executant came again with Ex. A1 after getting affairs of Ex. A1. The money not paid before me but DW. l s son told me that they received money. For getting thumb impression of executant, I sent first attestor a1ong with the son of DW. 1 to get affix thumb of DW. 1. So Nelam Venkataramana has A1so told me about the affix of money payment. It is not true to suggest that the entire execution took place in my presence that in the premises of such Registrar s office, Pithapuram. It is not true to say that executant affixed thumb impression in my presence. " ( 14 ) NOTHING is suggested to DW. 4 that the contents of the document were read over to the Appellant/defendant-1 before obtaining her thumb impression thereon. It is not true to say that executant affixed thumb impression in my presence. " ( 14 ) NOTHING is suggested to DW. 4 that the contents of the document were read over to the Appellant/defendant-1 before obtaining her thumb impression thereon. By reading the evidence of P. W. 2 and DW. 4, we are in no doubt to conclude that the thumb impression of the Appellant/ Defendant-1 (DW1) was obtained on Ex. A-1 without making her understand the contents therein. Much argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel for Respondent-1 and 21 plaintiffs that the Appellant/ Defendant-1 was capable of maintaining her affairs and hence, it has to be presumed that she put her thumb impression on Ex. A-1 with the full knowledge of the contents therein. We are unable to accede with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in view of the evidence of P. W. 2 and DW. 4 who did not speak even a word that the contents of Ex. A-1 were read over to the appellant/defendant-1 before obtaining her thumb impression thereon. The lower Court has not considered the evidence of P. W. 2 and DW. 4 in right perspective and thereby committed error in granting decree for specific performance of the agreement of sa1e (Ex. A-1 ). Under Section 20 of the specific Relief Act, a decree for specific performance is the discretion of the Court, but the discretion should not be refused arbitrarily. The discretion should be exercised on the sound principles of law capable of correction by an Appellate Court vide the decision of Supreme Court in Lourdu Man david v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy, AIR 1996 SC 2814 . ( 15 ) AS per the terms of Ex. A-1 agreement of sa1e, the appellant/ Defendant- 1 was to execute the sa1e deed within three months in favour of Respondent-1/plaintiff no. 1or his nominee. Respondent-1/appellant no. 1 issued notice on 2. 6. 1982 (Ex. A-2) demanding the Appellant/defendant-1 to execute a registered sa1e deed. It is contended by the learned Counsel for Respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs that mere delay in demanding the appellant/defendant-1 to deny the relief of specific performance of agreement of sa1e cannot be a ground for the refusa1 to grant the decree of specific performance. In this connection, he placed reliance on motila1 Jain v. Ramdasi, AIR 2000 SC 2408 . It is contended by the learned Counsel for Respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs that mere delay in demanding the appellant/defendant-1 to deny the relief of specific performance of agreement of sa1e cannot be a ground for the refusa1 to grant the decree of specific performance. In this connection, he placed reliance on motila1 Jain v. Ramdasi, AIR 2000 SC 2408 . In the cited case the Apex Court has given the aspects to bear in mind, which are relevant in a case of specific performance of contract for sa1e of immovable property. The aspects of delay which are relevant in a case of specific performance of sa1e of immovable property are: (1) Delay running beyond the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. (2) Delay in cases where though the suit is within the period of limitation yet (a) due to delay the third parties have acquired rights in the subject-matter of the suit; (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case delay may give rise to a plea of waiver or otherwise if it be inequitable to grant the discretionary relief. ( 16 ) COMING to the facts of the case on hand, any amount of doubt shrouds the genuineness of Ex. A-1 agreement of sale, since Respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs failed to prove that the Appellant/ Defendant-1 put her thumb impression on Ex. A-1 after knowing the contents thereon. Under these circumstances the above-referred decision is of no help to Respondent-1 and 2/plaintiffs. The Appellant/defendant-1 admits of her borrowing. It is the case of Appellant/ defendant-1 that he borrowed Rs. 10,000/- promising to repay the same with 12 per cent interest per annum. She pleaded the same in her written statement, which is extracted below:". . . . . The relationship of the 1st defendant with the 2nd defendant is not relevant and it has nothing to do with the transaction in question. The plaintiffs are not entitled to file the suit for specific performance of the a1leged for decree directing the defendants to execute the sa1e deed and for delivery of possession. This defendant was A1ways ready and willing to pay away the amount of rs. 10,000/-borrowed by her from the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff was refusing to take the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. The plaintiffs are not entitled for damages of Rs. This defendant was A1ways ready and willing to pay away the amount of rs. 10,000/-borrowed by her from the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff was refusing to take the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. The plaintiffs are not entitled for damages of Rs. 10,000/- for A1leged breach of contract with interest at 12 per cent from the date of the suit. This defendant is not liable to pay any damages, whatsoever, to the plaintiffs. In any view of the damages of rs. 10,000/- claimed by the plaintiffs is excessive and exaggerated. " ( 17 ) RESPONDENT-1 and 2/plaintiffs themselves claimed A1ternative relief of a money decree for the refund of the purchased money and damages with interest at 12 per cent against the Appellant/ Defendant-1. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the money decree for Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from 10-11-1979 to the date of rea1isation would meet the ends of justice. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appea1 is A1lowed in part with costs by setting aside the decree of part performance of agreement of sa1e granted in O. S. 28 of 1987 on the file of i Additiona1 Subordinate Court, Kakinada and instead a money decree for Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum thereon from 10-11-1979 to the date of rea1isation with costs is granted in favour of the respondent-1/1 st plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant-1.