JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2017 passed in civil suit No.41-A/2006 by the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG), whereby a suit for specific performance was decreed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Shyam Ratan Sahu, respondent No.1 herein, filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract dated 15.06.2005 (Ex. P/13) initially against Anjana Bai Bagre. It was alleged that as per the plaint allegation the suit property bearing plot No.320 under Khasra No.320/2 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. having superstructure situated at Sundar Nagar Grih Nirman Cooperative Society, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur was in name of late Rajesh Kumar Bagre son of Anjana Bai Bagre. Mother Anjana Bai Bagre entered into an agreement of sale initially with two sellers namely Shyam Ratan Sahu and Mahendra Sahu on 29.04.2005 (Ex. P-9) and subsequent agreement was executed on 15.06.2005 only with Shyam Ratan Sahu. According to the plaintiff, after execution of the second agreement dated 15.06.2005, the sale deed was not executed within specified time despite notice and the defendant/appellant herein when was called upon to execute the sale deed but the same was not done, eventually the suit was filed.

4. As per the written statement, the property belonged to one Rajesh Kumar Bagre and the seller Anjana Bai Bagre being the mother has executed the agreement, she did not have the absolute right to enter into such agreement. The objection having been taken to that effect, the other defendants i.e. daughter Ku. Ranjana Bagre, son Ratan Rao Bagre, another daughter Smt. Archana Kande and another son Vilas Rao Bagre were added as defendants on 18.03.2008. It was further stated that no execution of agreement was made by Anjana Bai Bagre and additional plea was taken since the other legal heirs have not been joined, the specific performance of the sale cannot be ordered. Learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff Shyam Ratan Sahu. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly the property was purchased by Rajesh Kumar Bagre by a sale deed vide Ex. P/1 and it was his absolute property, therefore, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956) read with Section 9 of the Act, 1956, the mother will not get the absolute ownership over the property, as such when the other legal heirs were not joined as a party, the specific performance of the agreement cannot be decreed. He further submits that the wife of the deceased was also not made a party, therefore, such agreement cannot be executed. He further placed his reliance in the cases of Vishin N. Khanchandani and another Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and another {(2000) 6 SCC 724} and Dharmabiri Rana Versus Pramod Kumar Sharma (DEAD) Through Legal Representatives and another {(2018) 11 SCC 554} and would submit that the finding of the learned Court below is completely perverse which requires interference.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the defendants have not filed their written statement as such it would amount to ratification of the agreement, consent and admission on the part of the defendants. He would further submit that after death of Rajesh Kumar Bagre, the mother has received the amount which has been used for all other legal heirs and when they were made a party they have not filed their written statement, which would lead to admission and consent. He further submits that the execution of the agreement since been denied, therefore, no defence can be looked into and it would be binding on the other legal heirs. He would further submit that even otherwise when the mother finds place as a Class-I heir, then that part of the agreement is required to be executed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

8. The reco