10.Considering the pleas put forth by the respective
parties and the materials placed on record, it is found that the
plaintiff and the defendant are sisters. The plaintiff by way of
the suit laid for specific performance is endeavoring to claim
right in the undivided share of the defendant in the suit survey
No.192/1 measuring an extent of 4.65 cents. Therefore, as rightly
concluded by the Courts below, when the plaintiff has laid the
suit based on the sale agreement marked as Ex.A5 with reference
to the undivided half share said to be belonging to the
defendant, the plaintiff should clearly project as to where
actually the suit property lies, within which the boundaries the
same is located etc.,. However, considering the evidence adduced
on the side of the plaintiff, when it is seen that the suit
property is only the undivided share and the plaintiff is unable
to identify the suit property, as such, particularly, the
location of the suit property in the suit survey number, the
claim of the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance
based on the indistinct and weak description of the suit
properties, as such, cannot be accepted and on that ground, the
Courts below are found to be justified in declining the equitable
and discretionary relief of specific performance.
