The court upheld specific performance of a contract where the plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness to fulfill obligations; joint family property claims were insufficient without evidence of legal necessity for sale.

JUDGMENT :

(T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.) :

1. Since both the appeals arise from the common judgment, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. A.S.No.79 of 2009 is filed, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) by the Appellant/2nd Defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 13.03.2008 in O.S.No.07 of 2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid (for short, ‘trial court’).The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.07 of 2002, for specific performance of contract directing the Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the schedule property after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- from the Plaintiff and to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the Plaintiff.

3. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.46 of 1998 for partition of plaint schedule property into 16 equal shares and allot 10 such shares to the Plaintiff by meets and bunds as per good and bad qualities and allotment of such share to the Plaintiff and for separate possession of the same.

4. A petition has been filed under Section 24 of the CPC by the Appellant/Plaintiff in O.S. No. 46 of 1998. The petitioner seeks to transfer A.S.No.55 of 2013 from the jurisdiction of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, to this Court, so it can be heard along with A.S. No. 79 of 2009. Following the Order, in TR.CMP. No. 513 of 2013 dated 02.04.2014, the learned Judge of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, allowed the petition. Consequently, A.S.No.55 of 2013 is transferred to High Court and renumbered as TRAS.No.358 of 2014.

5. The parties in both appeals will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

6. The brief averments, of the plaint, in O.S.No.46 of 1998, are as under:

(a) The Plaintiff is the sole son of the deceased 1st Defendant, and they are members of a Hindu joint family. During 1st Defendant's lifetime, he acquired the schedule property through a registered sale deed on 21.08.1980, using funds obtained from the sale of ancestral property located in Tenneru Village, Kankipadu Mandal. Since that time, both the Plaintiff and D.1 have shared joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

(b) In 1985, 1st Defendant transferred the Oil Dall Mill and flour mill, which is Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, to the Plaintiff at his request. This arrangement was documented in an unregistered partition agreement on 16.02.1986. Following this, the Plaintiff operated the Oil Mill business, while D.1 ran a Kirana business on the premises associated with Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Currently, the Plaintiff manages the Kirana shop located on Item No.1, while 1st Defendant continues to oversee the Oil Mill, which is Item No.2. The unregistered partition agreement dated 16.02.1986, was intended to facilitate independent business operations by the parties but was never fully imp