9.Ex A-1 sale agreement is alleged to have been executed by Perumal and his son Sathyanarayanan (defendant). The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint is that, apart from these two executants, one Pownammal have ¼ share in the property. The said Pownammal is not a party to the sale agreement nor a party in the suit. In the plaint, it is averred that, Perumal and Pownammal received a total sum of Rs.52,000/- towards their shares. In the deposition, the plaintiff has said, Pownammal son received the money. Either way, no receipt or proof for the payment placed before the Court. The suit for specific performance is laid against the sole defendant though admittedly there are other sharers. If the plaintiff case that except the defendant all other sharers are ready to perform the contract, there should have been some proof for the same. Witnesses should have been examined in support of that plea. The plaintiff has not even examined the witnesses to the sale agreement Ex A-1 to prove its execution. When the execution of Ex A-1 is denied by the defendant, the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to prove the execution, leave alone the right of the other parties.
