As per case facts, the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement for a property, with the plaintiff paying a significant advance. The first defendant delayed the ... sale, claiming his daughter's (second defendant's) consent was needed. The plaintiff alleged readiness and willingness, while the first defendant stated the second defendant refused consent and rescinded the agreement. The plaintiff sought specific performance for a reduced area. The trial court granted specific performance, which the first defendant appealed. The question arose whether the plaintiff was continuously ready and willing, and if partial performance could be enforced without relinquishing claims, especially given the second defendant's alleged share and her non-involvement in the agreement's enforcement. Finally, the High Court found the plaintiff was not ready and willing, and enforcement was not appropriate due to the second defendant's share and the lack of relinquishment. The High Court set aside the specific performance decree, ordering the first defendant to refund the advance with interest and an additional amount to the plaintiff.