(Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Mansa, dated 1st of August, 1979 vide which the suit of plaintiff-respondent Jarnail Singh for specific performance has been decreed. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement pertaining to the land measuring 14 kanals 8 Marlas situated in the area of village Matti. The appellant, defendant in the Court below, had entered into an agreement of sale to dispose of the aforesaid land to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 33,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed by 25th June, 1978. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs as earnest money. The land subject matter of sale was already under mortgage for Rs. 10,000/- with one`Gurcharan Singh and as per terms of the agreement it was agreed between the parties that the mortgage amount shall be kept by the plaintiffs to get the land redeemed, if the sale deed was registered When repeated requests of the plaintiffs to the defendants proved abortive, the suit giving rise to this appeal was filed. 3. Defendants 2 to 5 who were co-sharers with the defendant No. 1 were also impleaded as party-defendant although no relief was claimed against them. Out of defendants only defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. It was pleaded by defendant 1 in the written statement that no agreement was executed nor he had received an amount of Rs. 4,000/-, It was further pleaded by him that he was simpleton whereas the plaintiff was a clever person and by playing fraud a wrong document had been prepared, of which, he was not bound. It has also been pleaded by him that he was not the sole owner of the suit land and therefore, he was not in a position to get the sale deed registered. Defendant No. 2 in a separate written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that he was owner of half share in the joint Khata and defendant No. 1 could not transfer land in specific Khasra Nos. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues : 1. Whether any agreement of sale dated 16.5.1978 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for the sale of the suit land ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the agreement of sale was without consideration ? OPP 3. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the agreement in question ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs in the alternative are entitled to recover Rs. 8000/- from defendant No. 1 ? OPP 6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPP 7. Whether defendant No. 1 was owner and in possession of the suit land in specific Kila number as given in the plaint, if not its effect ? OPP 8. Whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to specific costs ? OPP 9. Relief. The learned trial Court returned finding on all material issued in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. 4. In this appeal preferred by the appellant all that has been contended is that in the agreement the land has been described in such way that it cannot be said with any certainty that the same is with regard to the land mentioned in it as also that there being other co-shares, defendant No. 1 was wholly incompetent to effect sale We and that too of a definite portion of land and in specific Khasra numbers. This Court is, however, of the firm view that the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants have no substance whatsoever. A firm finding based upon documentary and oral evidence has been returned by the learned trial Court that the agreement is with regard to land mentioned in the plaint. For returning such a finding, it has been noticed by the trial Court that boundaries of the land in dispute are given in Ex. P-1 as also that land in dispute was the same which was under mortgage with Gurcharan Singh etc. The plaintiffs produced evidence of original mortgage by examining PW-3 to PW-6. It was proved that the land mentioned in Ex. P-1 i.e. agreement of sale was the same which was subject matter of mortgage. The Court also observed that no other land of defendant No. 1 was proved by him to be lying under mortgage with Gurcharan Singh etc. That apart defendant in his own statement admitted that the boundaries of the suit land were the same as were, mentioned in Ex. P-1 and that the land in dispute was first mortgaged by him with Saban Singh on 24th of June 1973 and then it was got redeemed and further mortgaged with Gurcharan Singh for Rs. 10,000/-. In so far as right of defendant to alienate the property in specific Khasra number is concerned, suffice it to say that it is by now settled law that a co-sharer can sell joint property which may not exceed his share even though in specific Khasra numbers with a rider that the vendee would take such Khasra numbers subject to the right of co-sharers for partition. That apart, a firm finding has been recorded by the trial Court that long years ago, the parties i.e., co-sharers were having cultivation of separate Khasra numbers and that defendant No. 1 while earlier mortgaging the land twice over had mortgaged the same by parting possession of every Khasra numbers which were subject matter of agreement of sale. No other point has been raised before the Court. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is held devoid of any merit and is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed, No order as to costs.