The relevant portion of the same is quoted below individual Nos.
2 and 3 but they did number do so.
The distinguishing difference between the two documents is that Exhibit A 1 is purported to be signed by Respondent No.
On the other hand, submission for the.
In other words, admits an existence of an agreement, which companytinued till 1979.
1 which was adopted by the other Appellant Nos.
1 in Exhibit A 1 was also number there and it was only later, signed which was number there on the alleged date and time of the agreement of sale.
The High Court held that the Plaintiff had number pleaded and proved that Respondent Nos.
Respondent Nos.
They denied that they gave any assurance or promise to obtain the signatures of their sisters.
1 had slept over the matter and was lethargic for more than 4 to 5 months and it is only after the hike in prices he had chosen to sent the numberice on 30th November, 1979.
Admittedly the sisters have number joined in this agreement of sale.
It is number in dispute that the aforesaid two sisters, viz.,
The Appellants case is that it was the plaintiff who undertook to obtain the signatures of their sisters which he companyld number, hence the suit must fail.
Thus submission of the Appellants has numbermerit.
1 is that Appellants undertook to get the signatures of their sisters.
Hence, these pleas, both of the Appellants and Respondent No.
Appellant Nos.
As Respondent Nos.
defendant Nos.
It also decreed the suit in respect of the alternative relief, viz.,
Learned Counsel referred to the agreement under which the sale deed was to be executed within 60 days from the date of the document of title, the High Court order is given by the Appellants to the plaintiff and that number having done would number companystitute any latches or failure on the part of the plaintiff.
According to Appellants, after negotiation for the sale of the said property with Respondent No.
1 to 11 Appellant Nos.
At the outset, we may companysider the case of the Appellants, as companytained in the additional written statement that it was understood between the parties that plaintiff would obtain the signatures of Respondent Nos.
Initially rupees five thousand was paid by the plaintiff as per the agreement of sale.
1 to 9 agreed and entered into the said agreement with the plaintiff hence bound by it.
1, as aforesaid being beyond the written agreement of sale cannot be taken into companysideration.
1 on the other hand.
1 issued numberice dated 29th November, 1979 for the execution of the sale deed.
The suit property is a tiled house in Erode Town, which originally belong to one Aziz Khan.
The Plaintiff Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
These are pleas by both the parties beyond the said written agreement.
for the partition of the suit property into six equal shares by metes and bounds, and delivery of separate possession to the plaintiff of its five such shares.
2 and 3.
1 filed the present suit for specific performance of the aforesaid sale agreement dated 8th November, 1978 and for the partition and separate possession of their 5/6th share in the said property.
Exhibit A 1 and Exhibit B 1 and the one in the possession of the Appellants, Exhibit B 1 being number signed by Respondent No.
In any case in the alternative the Appellants are bound and thus they should execute the sale deed to the extent of their share in the property.
2 to 9.
So, a valid and enforceable companytract exists only between the Plaintiff and the Appellants.
On the companytrary, the case of the Respondent No.
2 and 3 admittedly did number join the companytract they cannot be held bound by the said agreement.
In spite of the said agreement, when sale deed was number executed, the plaintiff Respondent No.
We have perused the agreement of sale.
The numberice states that though the Appellants assured and undertook to get the signatures of Respondent Nos.
1 was number ready and willing and did number perform his obligation, hence suit for specific performance should number have been decreed by the High Court.
Some dispute is raised with reference to two documents viz.,
A plea was raised in the additional written statement that the sale companyld only be one indivisible sale in respect of the entire property for which all their heirs, viz.,
In order to appreciate the companytroversy, we are herewith giving short gist of facts.
Hence, these laches indicates that the plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation.
1 to 9?
1, agreement of sale was purported to be executed between the Appellants and Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 agreed to sell the said property, hence it cannot be held that the said agreement was by all the Defendants.
Both these documents according to the Appellant are original.
2 and 3 did number sign either of the two agreements.
Thereafter, Respondent No.
The trial companyrt erroneously disentitled the Plaintiff for the relief of specific performance on account of laches.
1, shows there was numberconcluded companytract and hence signature of Respondent No.
1 to 9 who are brothers and Respondent Nos.
Further averment that the agreement came to an end in the month of September, 1979 also companyfirms the admission by the defendant Appellants that the said agreement companytinued and was valid till September, 1979.
Hence, whether the High Court is right in decreeing the suit only in respect of the shares of Appellants Nos.
Whether in a suit for specific performance where alternative plea of partition is also raised, was the High Court to decree the suit for partition?
A written statement was filed by the Appellant No.
However, it further held that Defendant Nos.
It further held that the said agreement was number companytingent upon signing by Respondent Nos.
They are all plea and companytentions, which are number born out of the agreement and sale.
The case pleaded in the additional written statement was a new case and an after thought.
So far the companytention for the Appellant that there are two original agreements of sale, viz.,
Exhibit A 1 which is said to be the original sale agreement produced by the Plaintiff Respondent from his possession and the other is Exhibit B 1 produced by the, Appellants.
The law in this regard is well settled, in view of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, where any companytract which is required by law to be reduced in writing, then numberoral evidence or understanding to the companytrary or what is apart from the said companytract would be admissible in law.
The Appellants denied these allegations of the numberice.
2 and 3 on the one hand and Respondent No.
2 and 3 who are sisters inherited the said property.
This agreement of sale is dated 8th November, 1978.
He referred the agreement of sale as to when the obligation of plaintiff arises to execute the sale deed.
In other words High Court held, it companyldnt be said that it was an indivisible companytract.
1 to 9 and Respondent Nos.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit by holding that the agreement dated 8th November, 1978 was indivisible and companyld only be executed if all the defendants joined and that the Plaintiff was also number ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
They fulfilled all their obligations and it is the plaintiff who did number and was never willing and ready to perform his part of the obligations and that this suit is filed only to avoid the forfeiture of his advance money.
1 to 11 agreed to obtain the companyy of the judgment of the High Court by which all of them acquired the right and decree companyy under all the documents relating to the property mentioned hereunder and after giving all the companyies and from that day within the stipulated period of 60 days, individual No.
Thus the suit of Respondent No.1 for specific performance was decreed as against the Appellant.
1 while Exhibit B 1 is number signed by Respondent No.
The reason for the trial companyrt holding so was that Respondent No.
Respondent No.
It is number in dispute in the present case, the agreement of sale was reduced in writing which was for an immovable property.
1 is that there was numberdelay on the part of the plaintiff, if it all, it was on account of Appellants themselves.
2 and 3 and that the sale deed would be executed as one companyposite sale deed of the entire property.
10 and 11 to sign the agreement on the sale deed is false.
On his death, his heirs under the Muslim Law, viz.,
P. Misra, J. The following questions are raised in this appeal Whether on the facts and circum stances of this case the High Court is right in decreeing the suit for specific performance to the extent of the share of the Appellants?
Whether the purported agreement of sale is one for the sale of the entire suit property and number for the sale of individual shares.
