Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1195 (AP)

D. Ramamurthy v. Lakkaraju Lalithamma

2006-09-27

V.ESWARAIAH

body2006
JUDGMENT The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit O.S.No.140 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur for specific performance of agreement of sale EX.A-19 dated 2-1-1985 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 personally and on behalf of defendants 5 to 7 selling plaint schedule property bearing H.No.5-54-1, situated at Brodipet of Guntur Municipality, of an extent of 33541 Sq. feet by executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for possession; and in case of default by them, by the Court executing the sale deed in his favour or in the alternative for damages for the breach of contract of sale in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for costs of the suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit on 24-4-1986. The averments of the plaint are that defendant No.1 is the widow of L. Dathathreyasharma. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 8 are their daughters. Said Dathathreyasharma is the owner of the schedule house and he died intestate and the property devolved on the defendants. The schedule house is not capable of being divided and conveniently enjoyed by all the eight defendants as equal share holders, therefore, they put up the same for sale, for which, the plaintiff agreed to purchase it. The bargain was struck originally with defendants 1, 4 and 8 who are in Guntur in the said house for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and a contract of sale was executed by defendants 1 and 4 only on 2-12-1984 in favour of the plaintiff promising to get the other sharers to execute the sale deed. On that day, the plaintiff paid part consideration of Rs.25,000/- to the defendants 1 and 4. The plaintiff did not know then that there are differences between the defendants and knowing the family and its connections, the plaintiff believed the representation of the defendants 1 and 4 and entered into the agreement of sale with defendants 1 and 4 on 2-12-1984 vide EX.A-23. 3. The plaintiff did not know then that there are differences between the defendants and knowing the family and its connections, the plaintiff believed the representation of the defendants 1 and 4 and entered into the agreement of sale with defendants 1 and 4 on 2-12-1984 vide EX.A-23. 3. Later, the defendants 1 and 4 represented that all other defendants also agreed to sell the schedule house to the plaintiff, but that some difficulty is being encountered regarding the amount to be spent for the marriage expenses of 8th defendant and that he (sic. they) might take another contract of sale for Rs.3,75,000/-, which would be executed and specifically performed by one and all the defendants. The plaintiff, not being a person well versed in legal matters and being a soft person, could be persuaded to agree to that course, as it would not affect him while it helps the defendants 1,4 and 8 who represented that they took the consent of others and accordingly on 2-1-1985, the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 executed another agreement of sale EX.A-19 for the sale of the said house for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and the plaintiff paid Rs.75,000/- being part of the consideration. As per the terms of the said agreement of sale, the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid before 31-3-1985 by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 should execute the sale deed along with other defendants-the married daughters whom they undertook to bring and get the sale deed executed and in case of default on the part of the plaintiff, he had to pay interest on the balance sale consideration at the rate of 18% per annum. It was also agreed that the defendants should obtain the income tax clearance certificate, Encumbrance Certificate and pay Municipal Taxes, electricity and water charges and deliver the receipts and that the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 would obtain a relinquishment deed from the married daughters-defendants 5 to 7 of their rights in the schedule property, in case defendants 1 to 4 and 8 are unable to get defendants 5 to 7 to Guntur, as two of them are residing at Hyderabad, at least power of attorney has to be obtained for them to execute the sale deed, but since the defendants did not fulfill any of the obligations undertaken by them and each began to accuse the other for the delay in performing their obligations and began to quarrel as between themselves, the plaintiff tried to get through the transaction by negotiating with the defendants both personally and through a commonly known mediators namely Dr. Sujji, Lokanadham, Manipalli Sreeramamurthy and Desaraju Anjaneyulu and others by going to Hyderabad several times with them giving up his busy private practice and with heavy costs. Nonetheless the defendants did not agree as between themselves. Meanwhile to add fuel to the fire, prices began to go up and they entertained, at any rate some of the defendants, the idea of resiling from the contract of sale to make some more money. Negotiations were started and were carried on by the defendants endlessly not agreeing to any reasonable course, by always somebody or other putting a spoke. 4. The plaintiff who had made ready with the balance of consideration by the stipulated time could not finish the transaction though almost a year elapsed from that date. So, he got a registered notice EX.A-3 dated 27 -2-1986 issued to all the defendants. The defendants got divided into groups and defendants 1 and 8 received the registered notices, but chose to keep quite without giving any reply. Defendants 2 and 3 came down to Guntur and sent replies and pleaded that there was no fair price, but it was brought in collusion with defendants 1 and 4 and they kept the house vacated for registration of the sale deed losing heavy rents resulting in their running into debts. Defendants 2 and 3 came down to Guntur and sent replies and pleaded that there was no fair price, but it was brought in collusion with defendants 1 and 4 and they kept the house vacated for registration of the sale deed losing heavy rents resulting in their running into debts. It is further stated in the reply that as per the terms of the said contract of sale they approached the plaintiff in April and October 1985 and February 1986, but the plaintiff did not agree. Defendants 2 and 3 stated that they are prepared to execute the sale deed to the extent of their share in the house. The 5th defendant did not give any reply. Defendants 6 and 7 gave replies pleading ignorance about the alleged execution of EX.A-19 agreement of sale and payment of money by the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 gave reply stating that Dathathreya Sharma has not died intestate, but he executed a Will deed dated 13-10-1970 bequeathing the said property in his favour and he signed the said contract without full knowledge of the contents and he also stated that his signature was forged as he was not aware of having signed on it and under the ill-advice of his eldest brother, he might have signed on some papers without knowing the consequences. Thus, it is stated that defendants 1 and 8 maintained silence, defendants 2 and 3 admitted the execution of agreement of sale Ex.A-19, defendants 6 and 7 pleaded ignorance as they did not sign the two contracts of sale, defendants No.6 kept quite and defendant No.4 set up title in himself. Thus, it is clear that there are differences between the defendants and they have not co-operated to perform their part of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 and the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 committed breach of the same and their offer to execute the sale deed for their 1 18th share each by defendants 2 and 3 without fulfilling their obligation to get it executed by the non-executants-married sisters is of no avail. Hence, the suit was filed. 5. Defendants 1 and 8 set ex parte. Hence, the suit was filed. 5. Defendants 1 and 8 set ex parte. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement which was adopted by defendant No.3 expressing their ignorance of EX.A-23 agreement of sale dated 2-12-1984 for the alleged consideration of Rs 4,00,000/- and stated that the said agreement was entered behind their back and they are not parties to it and the said contract was brought up clandestinely by the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 4 and 8 involving undivided shares of other defendants and the said contracts therefore suffer from initial legal infirmity of illegally and unauthorisedly disposing of the undivided shares of the defendants 2 and 3 also, which the defendants 1, 4 and 8 are not entitled to do as they did in collusion with the plaintiff with an intent to defraud the said defendants 2 and 3 of their legitimate share in the plaint schedule house. The defendants 1, 4 and 8 who are staying at Guntur never took the defendants 2 and 3 into confidence in regard to the aforesaid contract and defendants 2 and 3 were subsequently made to sign the later contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 EX.A-19 as if in due ratification of the former one dated 2-12-1984 but designedly reducing the consideration from Rs 4,00,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- and the second contract is again invalid and incomplete as the defendants 5 to 7 did not join the execution of the same. All other allegations have been denied and stated that the plaintiff is not entitled for the specific performance of agreement of sale. 6. Defendant No. 4 filed a written statement setting up Ex. B-1 Will dated 13-10-1970 bequeathing the suit schedule property in his favour and the signatures said to have been made by him on the said contracts of sale might have been forged when he used to sign the papers brought by his eldest brother. He signed on some papers or documents brought by his brother blindly having reposed confidence in him without knowledge of the facts therein. The plaintiff who is a leading medical practitioner brought into existence the alleged agreement of sale fraudulently and the conduct of the plaintiff is questionable. The defendants are not liable to pay damages nor bound by the alleged agreements dated 2-12-1984 and 2-1-1985. 7. The plaintiff who is a leading medical practitioner brought into existence the alleged agreement of sale fraudulently and the conduct of the plaintiff is questionable. The defendants are not liable to pay damages nor bound by the alleged agreements dated 2-12-1984 and 2-1-1985. 7. Defendant No.7 filed a written statement, expressing her ignorance about the execution of alleged agreements of sale, stating that she does not know about receipt of money by defendants1 and 4 and stated that the plaintiff who is well educated and a leading medical practitioner had played fraud by entering into the agreements with defendants 1 to 4 for two different prices for the same property on 2-12-1984 and 2-1-1985 within a span of one month in collusion with defendants 1 to 4. Plaintiffs mala fide conduct does not entitle him to the equitable relief of specific performance or to the damages claimed by him. 8. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the Will dated 13-10-1970 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether the 4th defendant is liable for damages? 3. Whether the contract of sale is true, valid and binding on all the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 2-1-1985? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages for breach of contract? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the amount of the damages claimed? 7. To what relief? 9. The plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A-1 to A-23 were marked on his behalf. Defendant No.4 is examined as D.W.1 and the scribe and attestors of Ex. B-1 Will are examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. 10. The trial Court held that the plea of the 4th defendant with regard to the genuineness of Ex.B-1 Will relates to the rights of the parties inter se and therefore, the said rights cannot be decided in a suit filed by the plaintiff and the Court cannot go into that aspect for the reason that the Court is not inclined to pass a decree for the specific performance of agreement of sale Ex.A-19, no finding has been recorded with regard to the genuineness of Ex. B-1 Will and accordingly, the damages claimed by the 4th defendant and other defendants that the house was kept vacant and they sustained damages was not proved; and the plaintiff is not entitled for the specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief to receive the money paid by him under Ex.A-23 agreement of sale dated 2-12-1984 and Ex.A-19 agreement of sale dated 2-1-1985 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum by way of damages as per the condition incorporated in Ex.A-19 agreement of sale. 11. With regard to the main issues: whether the contract of sale Ex.A-19 is true, valid and binding on all the defendants and whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 the trial Court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the contract of sale executed by the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 to sell the entire property who are having undivided share along with the coparceners to the property i.e., defendants 5 to 7 without their consent under the said two agreements of sale Exs.A-23 and A-19 and in the absence of any consent by the defendants 5 to 7, the plaintiff is not entitled for the specific performance of the agreement of sale. It is also further held that the plaintiff never contacted the defendants 5 to 7 and they never agreed to sell their shares and the persons who have limited share are not entitled to sell the share of others and therefore, the agreement is not enforceable. No doubt, the other contention of defendant No.4 that fraud has been played on him in getting his signatures on EX.A-19 is not proved, but however, at any rate, the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the specific performance of the entire contract since the case falls within the ambit of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff by his conduct has made it impossible for the Court to give effect to the contract in its entirety and it is also no justification in compelling the purchaser of the entirety to take undivided part or piecemeal of the property. 12. 12. It is stated that in EX.A-19 contract, the earlier contract in EX.A-23 was not at all referred and the suit was based on the said two contracts and non-mention of EX.A-23 contract in EX.A-19 agreement is not justified. The trial Court further held that the defendants did not and could not fulfill the contract due to disputes inter se. Even though it has been pleaded and profused by the plaintiff that he had been ready to perform his part of contract in having sale deed, he had not acted diligently in issuing registered notice to the defendants as could be seen from EX.A-2 notice dated 14-2-1986, though he has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 31-3-1985, but he issued EX.A-2 notice after 11 months of the due date mentioned in EX.A-19. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract cannot be believed. 13. The plaintiff filed the appeal in rejecting the main relief claimed by him with regard to specific performance of the contract of dated 2-1-1985.The learned counsel learning for the appellant submits that no doubt, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief specific performance of contract of sale In so for as the undivided shares of defendants 5 to 7 who are not parties to Ex.A-19 contract ale dated 2-1-1985, but the defendants 4 and 8 who are the executants of Ex.A-19 contract are bound to perform their part of contract of sale in so far as their undivided share in the plaint schedule property. 14. Therefore, the questions that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of agreement of sale in so far as undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and 8? (2) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract as averred by him with regard to the payment of price before 31-3-1985? (3) Whether the plaintiff was able to prove the averments made in the plaint entitling him for the specific performance of contract of sale in so far as undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and 8? 15. (3) Whether the plaintiff was able to prove the averments made in the plaint entitling him for the specific performance of contract of sale in so far as undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and 8? 15. The plaintiff who was examined as P.W.1 stated that defendants 1, 4 and 8 alone fixed up the bargain to sell the house to him along with other defendants originally for 3 sum of Rs 4,00,000/- to discharge some debts and for the marriage expenses of defendant No. 8 and executed EX.A-23 3greement of sale dated 2-12-1984 for a sum if Rs 4,00,000/- and he paid Rs. 25,000/- as advance. Defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone executed the said agreement of sale. They promised to get other defendants also for execution of the sale deed. By that time, he does not know whether there are any differences between the defendants inter se. Subsequently all the defendants gathered at one point of time except the married daughters and they wanted to enter into a subsequent agreement for the schedule house for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. Accordingly, defendants 1 to 4 and 8 executed second agreement of sale EX.A-19 dated 2-1-1985 for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- in his favour and he has paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- as part payment. As per EX.A-19 agreement of sale, the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 agreed to bring all other defendants to execute the sale deed on 31-1-1985 and in case, the plaintiff is not ready, he has to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the balance sale consideration. He was ready with the balance consideration by 31-3-1985 and thereafter, the defendants did not co-operate to execute the sale deed. It is stated that he tried personally and through mediators namely Lokanadham, M. Sreeramamurthy, D. Anjaneyulu and A. Narayanarao, Doctor @ Bujji. D.Anjaneyulu is the elder brother of the first defendant. He went to Hyderabad along with Lokanadham and contacted the second defendant to get through the transaction, but yet they did not co-operate. Then he got issued EX.A-2 notice dated 14-2-1986 to the defendants and another notice dated 27-2-1986. EX.A-3 is the office copy of the said notice, for which, reply notices have been sent by some of the defendants. He went to Hyderabad along with Lokanadham and contacted the second defendant to get through the transaction, but yet they did not co-operate. Then he got issued EX.A-2 notice dated 14-2-1986 to the defendants and another notice dated 27-2-1986. EX.A-3 is the office copy of the said notice, for which, reply notices have been sent by some of the defendants. It is stated that defendants 1 to 3 and 8 admitted the execution of the agreement of sale and 4th defendant also admitted the execution, but the defendants 6 and 7 pleaded ignorance. It is stated that the offer of the defendants 2 and 3 to execute the sale deed in his favour for their 1 18th share is not feasible. Therefore, he filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale or in the alternative for compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- It is stated that he has nothing to do with any differences between the defendants and the defendants are only in possession of the suit property. The first defendant died on 21-12-1987 and other defendants are Legal Representatives of the first defendant. Exs.A-20 and A-22 are the letters written by one Gopalakrishna to the plaintiff and EX.A-21 is the letter written by M. Sreerama Murthy. 16. In the cross-examination made on behalf of defendants 2 and 3, it is stated by the plaintiff that one Sreerama Murthy House Broker has informed him about the sale of the house and he contacted the vendors through Sreerama Murthy and Sreerama Murthy informed him that five persons will sell the suit property for Rs 4,00,000/-. He did not ascertain the legal rights of the persons who will sell to him. Sreerama Murthy brought the title deed held by late L.D.Sharma and Sreerama Murthy took away the title deed back and went to obtain opinion from the legal experts and they informed him that the title deed is in order and correct. He met the first defendant widow of late L.D. Sharma and at that time their third son-Prasad, last un-married daughter and one Dr. Anjaneyulu were also present and other legal heirs were not present. It is stated that unless all other persons signed the agreement, it is not possible to purchase the property. They have promised to get the signatures of all the legal representatives on the agreement. Anjaneyulu were also present and other legal heirs were not present. It is stated that unless all other persons signed the agreement, it is not possible to purchase the property. They have promised to get the signatures of all the legal representatives on the agreement. The said agreement was not signed by all the legal representatives of Sharma as all of them were not present at that time and he did not ask for all the absentee vendors being sent for so that all the vendors may join in the transaction. Sreerama Murthy also did not guide to take the signature of all the legal heirs of L.D.Sharma. The agreement was signed by the wife, three sons and unmarried daughter alone and other three unmarried (sic. married) daughters have not signed. He did not ascertain earlier whether the other sharers are competent to dispose of the undivided share of the absentee vendors. The vendors mentioned in the second agreement promised to register the sale deed along with the married daughters within three months, but they have been postponing. Therefore, he issued notices and some of the notices were returned and no further notices have been issued to them. He does not know who scribed EX.A-19 agreement. The first agreement was written in the house of Desaraju Anjaneyulu and second agreement was written at the plaint schedule house. Sreerama Murthy asked the scribe to write the document. He cannot say whether Sreerama Murthy was present at the time of the execution of the agreement. Sreerama Murthy brought the agreement and later the parties signed it. The suggestion that the vendors did not promise to get the others signatures on the document at the time of registration was denied and the allegation of the collusion with the executants was also denied. 17. In the cross examination on behalf of defendants 5 to 7, it is stated that the first agreement does not bear the date on which it was executed and it is incorrect to state that the suit is based on the agreement for Rs.3,75,000/- and the first and second agreements have not at all been executed by defendants 5 to 7. In the cross examination on behalf of the 4th defendant, he stated that he did not enquire the other legal representatives of L.D. Sharma whether they are willing to sell the property or not. 18. In the cross examination on behalf of the 4th defendant, he stated that he did not enquire the other legal representatives of L.D. Sharma whether they are willing to sell the property or not. 18. The most important admission of P.W.1 in his chief-examination is that as the offer of the defendants 2 and 3 to execute the sale deed in his favour for their respective 1/8th share is not feasible, he has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale or in the alternative for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- against all the defendants. That means, the plaintiff was not inclined to get the sale deed in respect of the undivided shares of defendants 2 and 3, but he wanted to get the sale deed in respect of entire property from all the defendants. 19. The 4th defendant alone entered into the box and examined himself as D.W.1. The deposition of D.Ws.2 and 3 is not relevant or necessary as they were examined to prove the genuineness or otherwise of EX.B-1 Will. As the genuineness or otherwise of Ex. B-1 Will was not at all decided, their evidence is not necessary. Though 4th defendant stated that he never executed any agreement of sale, but the fact remains that the agreement of sale was executed by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 and the execution of the agreement of sale EX.A-19 by defendants 1 to. 4 and 8 was not at all questioned by any of the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that defendant No. 4 did not execute EX.A-19. Having averred that fraud has been played in obtaining the document, the burden shifted on the 4th defendant has not at all been discharged. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not one of the signatures of EX.A-19 contract. The plea of defendant No.4 is that the property vested in him by virtue of the Will EX.B-1 said to have been executed by his father, but he has not filed any suit, claiming right, title under Ex, B-1 Will and therefore, the trial Court rightly held that no relief can be granted with the plea of genuineness or otherwise of EX.B-1 Will in a suit filed by the plaintiff. Having pleaded that the document was forged, no evidence has been adduced to prove the forgery. 20. Having pleaded that the document was forged, no evidence has been adduced to prove the forgery. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract for the payment of balance sale consideration and therefore, he is entitled far specific performance in so far as the undivided shares of defendants 1 to. 4 and 8 are concerned, though he is not entitled far specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the shares of defendants 5 to. 7 who are not the executants and who have not agreed far the sale of their shares. The perusal of the plaint goes to show that there are due differences between the defendants and therefore, they have not co-operated to the specific performance of their part of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 and the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 committed breach of the same and their offer to execute the sale deed for their 1/8th share each by the defendants 2 and 3 and without fulfilling their obligation to get it executed by the non-executants married sisters defendants 5 to 7 which they along with others undertook, is of no avail. Hence, the suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 has been filed or in the alternative for the damages for the breach of contract against the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff never wanted to get the shares of defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone to be purchased, but he wanted to purchase the entire property from all the defendants 1 to 8. Therefore, in his deposition also he has specifically admitted in his chief-examination that the offer of defendants 2 and 3 to execute the sale deed in his favour for their 1/8 share is not feasible and therefore, he has filed the suit for specific performance or in the alternative for the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ against all the defendants. It is also the case of the plaintiff that suit house is not capable of being divided, they put up the same for sale jointly enjoyed by them having equal shares. It is also the case of the plaintiff that suit house is not capable of being divided, they put up the same for sale jointly enjoyed by them having equal shares. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the plaintiff is entitled for purchase of the shares of the agreement holders defendants 1 to 4 and 8 cannot be accepted as that is not the plaint averment or the evidence adduced by the plaintiff inclining to purchase the undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone. As against the said pleadings of the plaintiff, the contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff is entitled to purchase the undivided shares of the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 cannot be accepted, though no doubt as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and others1 and in the case of A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Died) and others v. P.A.K.A. Shahul I Hamid and others when the property is owned jointly, unless it is shown to the contrary, it has to be held that each one of the joint owners owns a moiety of the property and the share of an agreement holder can be purchased even if other co- sharers refused to accept the agreement executed by one of the co-sharers and the agreement should not be enforced against co-sharers who have not signed, but the same can be enforced against a sharer who has signed and whose property is identifiable by his specific share. No doubt, the purchaser will not become a coparcener of the family and he cannot jointly enjoy the property on par with the other coparceners, but he can apply for the partition of the property and get the share demarcated. Even where the property is held jointly and once any party to the contract has agreed to sell such joint property by agreement, then, even if the other co-sharer has not joined, at least to the extent of his share, he is bound to execute the sale deed. However, in the absence of the other co-sharer, there could not be any decree of any specified part of the property to be partitioned and possession given. The decree could only be to the extent of transferring the share of the co-sharer in such property to other such contracting party. 21. However, in the absence of the other co-sharer, there could not be any decree of any specified part of the property to be partitioned and possession given. The decree could only be to the extent of transferring the share of the co-sharer in such property to other such contracting party. 21. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to purchase the undivided share of defendants 1 to 4 and 8 are concerned if he wants, subject to the fulfillment of his part of obligation under the EX.A-19 contract of sale dated 2-1-1985. 22. As already stated as per the said contract of sale, the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has to be paid on 31-3-1985. Though it is stated by the plaintiff that he was ready with the money by 31-3-1985, admittedly no notice has been issued till the expiry of 11 months of the agreed date 31-3-1985 and for the first time EX.A-2 notice dated 14-2-1986 was issued, for which, reply notices have been issued in March, 1986 by various defendants. Even EX.A-2 notice goes to show that the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs 4,00,000/-and obtained agreement of sale from defendants 1 and 4 on 2-12-1984 on the promise that they will get the other sharers to specifically perform the same, but later some differences arose and ultimately another agreement was entered for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. As already an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 2-12-1984 and defendants 1 to 4 and 8 executed the fresh contract EX.A-19 to sell the said property for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- by receiving Rs.75,000/- as part sale consideration. As already an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 2-12-1984 and defendants 1 to 4 and 8 executed the fresh contract EX.A-19 to sell the said property for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- by receiving Rs.75,000/- as part sale consideration. As per EX.A-19 contract, balance amount has to be paid before 31-3-1985 and in default, the plaintiff has to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the defendants have to get income tax clearance certificate and pay Municipal Taxes, electricity and water charges and deliver the receipts and also get other three married daughters for execution of the sale deed or in their absence, get the power of attorney from them to execute the sale deed, but none of the defendants fulfilled any of their obligations undertaken by them and whenever the plaintiff approached the defendants personally and through mediators, they have been putting it off due to internal quarrels between them though he was got ready with the money by 31-3-1985. He kept the amount idle for long time due to the procrastination of the defendants. It is further stated that the defendants are trying to resile from the said agreement, hence notice was issued calling upon them to specifically perform the same within a week. 23. The plaintiff has not examined any of the so-called mediators and no document has been filed with regard to his readiness and willingness to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as agreed by him before 31-3-1985. However, admittedly, the first agreement EX.A-23 was executed by two persons only i.e., defendants 1 and 4. Even in the first agreement Ex.A-23, no date is given, but month and year alone were stated. Though it is stated that it was executed on 2nd December, but the date of 2nd is not at all mentioned in EX.A-23. Admittedly, defendants 1 and 4 alone executed Ex.A-23, but in his oral deposition, the plaintiff sated that defendants 1, 4 and 8 executed EX.A-23 agreement of sale on 2-11-1984. In fact, it was executed in December, 1984, but not in November, 1984. The oral statement of the plaintiff that the said agreement was executed by defendants 1, 4 and 8 also is not correct, but it was executed by defendants 1 and 4 alone. If that be so, Rs.25,000/- was received by defendants 1 and 4 alone pursuant to EX.A-23. The oral statement of the plaintiff that the said agreement was executed by defendants 1, 4 and 8 also is not correct, but it was executed by defendants 1 and 4 alone. If that be so, Rs.25,000/- was received by defendants 1 and 4 alone pursuant to EX.A-23. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not stated anything about the earlier execution of EX.A-23 contract of sale, in the later EX.A-19 contract of sale, dated 2-1-1985 and the plaintiff specifically failed to mention the earlier execution of agreement of sale by defendants 1 and 4. However, even the second agreement was executed within a month or so by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone. The plaint averments and the oral deposition of the plaintiff go to show that there are differences among the defendants when the second agreement of sale was executed on 2-1-1985 and the market prices began to go up. When there are disputes among the co-sharers/defendants, it is difficult to believe the version of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 gave assurance to the plaintiff that they will get other co-sharers i.e., defendants 5 to 7 or at least to get the power of attorney from them. When it is stated by the plaintiff that due to the disputes and as the market prices are increasing day by day, he has executed the second agreement and if that be so, when the market price is increasing day by day, it is also pertinent to note that the sale price was not at all increased in the second agreement and however there is no evidence to show that he was ready with the money by 31-3-1985 and the suit was filed only on 24-4-1986 i.e., after the lapse of a year. Even according to the plaintiff, the prices are increasing day by day and according to the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of V. Pechimuthu v. Gowrammal, the rise of the prices of the property is the relevant factor in denying relief of specific performance when Court is considering whether to grant decree for the first time, but it will not be a relevant factor before the Supreme Court at SLP stage. 24. 24. No doubt, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by time and the readiness and willingness could not be treated as a straight jacket formula and it has to be determined from the entirety of the facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned, but the question that arises whether the plaintiff was ready with the money on the due date 31-3-1985 is a relevant factor to determine whether he is ready and wiling to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on that day. The plaintiff has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove his readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before 31-3-1985 even to the executants of the second agreement i.e., defendants 1 to 4 and 8. The so-called mediators were not at all examined and no documentary evidence has been filed in proof of his contention that he was ready with the money by 31-3-1985. More so, when the market prices are increasing day by day, the conduct of the plaintiff in waiting for a year in filing the suit goes to show that the plaintiff was not ready with the money on the due date 31-3-1985. Though there is a clause for payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment, but in view of the increase of prices day by day, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale even in respect of the undivided shares of the co-sharers defendants 1 to 4 and 8. However, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he wanted to purchase the undivided share of the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone pursuant to Ex.A-19, but it is the case of the plaintiff that the offer of the defendants 2 and 3 to execute the sale deed in his favour for their 1/8th share is not feasible and therefore, he has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale or in the alternative for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ against all the defendants. Thus, it is clear that the suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale against all the defendants. The plaintiff was not interested to purchase the un-divided share of the executants of EX.A-19 alone. Thus, it is clear that the suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale against all the defendants. The plaintiff was not interested to purchase the un-divided share of the executants of EX.A-19 alone. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the specific performance of the agreement of sale from all the defendants. 25. As per the settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sugani v. Rameshwar Das and another, the basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemish less throughout entitling him to specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of the plaint he should not be denied the relief. 26. The perusal of the plaint also goes to show that due to the differences between the defendants themselves, they have not cooperated to specifically perform their part of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 and the defendants 1 to 4 and 8 committed breach of the same and their offer to execute the sale deed for their 1/8th share each of the defendants 2 and 3 and without fulfilling their obligation to get it executed by non-executant married sisters defendants 5 to 7, which they undertook along with others is of no avail and hence the said suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale dated 2-1-1985 or in the alternative for damages for breach of contract against defendants 1 to 4 and 8 only. 27. Thus, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he wanted to purchase the undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and 8 alone. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to get the specific performance of the agreement of sale by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 cannot be accepted, as it is not the case of the plaintiff to purchase their undivided shares. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to get the specific performance of the agreement of sale by defendants 1 to 4 and 8 cannot be accepted, as it is not the case of the plaintiff to purchase their undivided shares. 28 For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, to interfere with the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and the appeal suit is accordingly dismissed, however without any costs.