ORDER : This is an appeal by special leave at the instance of original plaintiff (appellant herein) against defendants-respondents, seeking specific performance of agreement (Ext. P1) entered into between them on 15th July, 1992 for sale of landed property measuring 30 acres 27 guntas in Jackhalli village, Hangalla Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Karnataka. 2. The learned trial Judge by an elaborate judgment, dismissed the Suit of appellant-plaintiff but declared that the respondents-defendants should refund the earnest money of Rs. 62,500/- paid by the appellant- plaintiff with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of Suit till realization. 3. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant carried the matter in appeal to the High Court. Relying on the law enshrined in a decision of this Court in the case of K.S. Vaidyanadam v. Vairavan, AIR 1997 SC 1751 , the High Court observed that the plaintiff did not act in a prudent manner to get the contract completed, and dismissed his appeal. That is how the matter is before us in this appeal preferred by the original plaintiff. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also given our consideration to the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as High Court. 5. It is evident from the material on record that Suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant suffers from certain infirmities. Admittedly the plaintiff-appellant is a businessman, a broker by profession and the respondents-defendants are farmers. By the time the plaintiff-appellant replied to the notice dated 15-3-1993, served by the defendants claiming breach of contract by him, he had already obtained the R.T.C. (Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops) from the concerned authorities. In the same manner if he so wanted to get the other relevant R.T.C. extracts, he would have obtained them on his own efforts as they are public documents and available at all times to anyone. It also appears from the material on record that the plaintiff has failed to perform his own part of contract. One more aspect is Defendant No. 6 has proved before the trial Court that he was not a party to the agreement and hence he is not bound for specific performance. Apart from that, there was also non-joinder of some necessary parties to the Suit. 6. One more aspect is Defendant No. 6 has proved before the trial Court that he was not a party to the agreement and hence he is not bound for specific performance. Apart from that, there was also non-joinder of some necessary parties to the Suit. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety, one can reach to the conclusion that only when the notice (Ext. P9) was served by the defendants-respondents on the plaintiff-appellant cancelling the agreement (Ext. P1) owing to the breach of contract by the plaintiff, he issued reply (Ext. P10) taking technical stand by demanding specific performance by furnishing RTC extracts etc. It shows that until then, he was not curious to complete the sale procedures. 7. Having heard learned counsel on either side and taking note of relevant facts of the case, we are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled for grant of specific performance. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, in our considered view, it is fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, to direct the respondents-defendants to refund the earnest money of Rs.62,500/- paid by the appellant-plaintiff with enhanced rate of interest i.e. 12% p.a. from the date of Suit till realization, instead of 6% p.a. as directed by the trial Court. 8. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.