The court affirmed that agreements for the sale of shares in joint family properties can be specifically enforced, if properly documented, despite disputes over full title.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri.Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Sarvanna S., learned counsel for respondent.

2. Present appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.248/2012 whereby suit of the plaintiff/respondent came to be decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2012 in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) came to be decreed:

The agricultural landed properties situated at Kumdenahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar district.

1. Sy.No.14/2, meg. 1-13 acres and it is bounded on:

East by – defendants own land

West by – Jayamma’s land

North by – K.R. Venkataramaiah land

South by – defendants own land

2. Sy.No.32, meg. 1-26 acres and it is bounded on:

East by – Pramilamma’s land

West by – defendants own land

North by – Kerekatte

South by – Government land.

3. Validity of the said judgment and decree was subject matter of RA No.141/2015 filed by the defendants which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 13.12.2019.

4. Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether both the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit even though vendors are not having complete title over the subject property and without concurrence of remaining co-sharers, the relief of specific performance cannot be granted, since the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?

2. Whether the discretion exercised by the courts below under Section 20 (c) of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT is correct?

3. Whether courts below ignored the weight of Ex.DW3 while answering the issue of joint family and erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiff?”

5. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for specific enforcement of agreement to sell in respect of suit property dated 09.01.2012 came to be filed by plaintiff/respondent which was registered as O.S.No.248/2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, Sitting at Mulbagal.

6. Suit on due contest, came to be decreed by the Trial Court.

7. An appeal came to be filed by the defendants before the First Appellate Court challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in RA No.141/2015.

8. It is contended before the First Appellate Court that no such agreement as per Ex.P.1 came to be executed and agreement was a loan transaction and document was executed for the purpose of security which was fabricated into agreement to sell by the plaintiff.

9. Admittedly, suit agreement is a registered agreement and defendants were present before the sub-registrar for due execution of the suit agreement.

10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after holding that Ex.P.1 stands proved, has taken note of the fact that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.5,10,000/- sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is already paid as earnest money and only sum of Rs.10,000/- was balance consideration to be paid.

11. D.W.2 and 3 who are examined on behalf of the defendants are none other than the signatories to Ex.P.1.

12. D.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that he has incurred loss in tomato business. He has also admitted that to meet the urgent financial necessities, the agreement at Ex.P.1 came into existance.

13. No doubt, defendants having denied the proper execution of the agreement at Ex.P.1 were required to prove that it was a loan transaction and same has been concocted into agreement to sell.

14. On factual aspects, both the Courts have held that Ex.P.1 is a genuine document and reg