A co-owner’s unilateral acknowledgment of part-payment cannot compel specific performance against another co-owner.

The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 entered into a registered agreement on 22 November 2000 for the sale of the suit property for Rs. 40,000, with a six-month period for completion.

The defendants admitted the agreement and receipt of Rs. 20,000 as advance. The plaintiff alleged later payments, acknowledged by defendants 1 and 2, but the appellant, defendant 3 and a joint owner, denied receiving those payments or endorsing them

The trial court refused specific performance but awarded recovery of the advance with interest; the first appellate court reversed that decision and decreed specific performance for the entire property. Defendant 3 brought this second appeal

Whether acknowledgments of further payments made by defendant 1 alone could support specific performance against defendant 3, a joint owner who did not sign the endorsements

Whether the suit was barred by limitation, or whether defendant 1’s acknowledgments were necessary to save it

Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract so as to obtain specific performance of defendant 3’s share

In a claim for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff’s contractual obligations

The Court also considered the agreement’s stipulation that the agreement would be cancelled and the advance forfeited if the balance was not paid within six months.

In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court addressed the substantial questions of law framed at admission.

No precedent is cited in the judgment; the Court held that the suit, filed on 27 February 2002 following the agreement of 22 November 2000, was within the limitation period, so the acknowledgment-based limitation question did not arise.

The Court found that defendant 3 did not sign the endorsements for the later payments and that the plaintiff had not paid the balance or otherwise demonstrated readiness and willingness to complete the sale within the stipulated six months.

The plaintiff’s conduct therefore did not justify compelling defendant 3 to convey her share; defendant 1’s acknowledgments could not bind defendant 3 for that purpose

The Court rejected the limitation issue because the suit was filed within the applicable period.

It also held that the first appellate court had erred in granting specific performance over the entire property, including defendant 3’s share, while leaving its decree otherwise undisturbed.

The decree for specific performance was left intact in all other respects; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs