An HUF property cannot be unilaterally sold by the Karta without consent from coparceners; agreements executed in such a manner are void. Undue influence claims require substantial proof to affect contract validity.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff Capt. Rajesh Sethi, has filed a suit for Declaration that the Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2004 executed by his father, Col. P.C. Sethi, defendant No.1 in favour of Shri Ravinder Nangia, defendant No.2 is void ab initio & non est, a Mandatory Injunction to direct defendant No.1 to cancel the Agreement to Sell and also Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest on the suit property in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell.

2. A civil suit is filed by Sh. Ravinder Nangia (defendant no.2 in afore mentioned Civil Suit No CS(OS) 436/2000 ) seeking Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2004 entered into by him with Col. P. C. Sethi, and in the alternative specific performance in respect of the share of Col. P.C. Sethiub or a refund of Rs. 39,00,000/- & damages of Rs. 75,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. All the parties are concordant that defendant No.1 Col. P. C. Sethi, who is the father of the plaintiff Capt. Rajesh Sethi, having lost all assets in Pakistan, had applied and obtained provisional allotment of a 325 sq. yards plot bearing No. C-269, Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") vide a Perpetual Lease. The possession of the plot was handed over to defendant No.1 on 13.05.1954 and the construction was carried out by Kilokri Defence Service Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. in January, 1955.

4. He entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2004 for the sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.2,74,00,000 (Rupees two crores seventy four lakhs) against which Rs.26,00,000 was paid at the time of signing the Agreement to Sell and further payment of Rs.13,00,000 was made on 22.01.2004. However, the circumstances leading to the signing of the Agreement to Sell and the events thereafter have come under challenge by way of these two suits.

5. The plaintiff in CS (OS) 436/2004, Captain Rajesh Sethi has claimed that the suit property was purchased partly out of the money received towards claims in respect of ancestral properties left behind in Pakistan and partly from loans which were paid from the sale of ancestral jewellery. It is an HUF property that was managed by his father, defendant No.1 Col. P.C. Sethi and has all along been reflected as a joint family property in the Income Tax Returns filed by defendant No.1 in the capacity of Karta of Col. P.C. Sethi, HUF (hereinafter referred to as -HUF").

6. It is claimed that the Captain Rajesh Sethi as a coparcener of the HUF, has also contributed for the upkeep and maintenance of the property including having paid Conversion fee amounting to Rs.52,200/- vide cheque dated 03.08.1996 to get the property converted to freehold. It is further stated that defendant No.1 and his youngest son defendant No.3 Shri Raman Sethi resided in the suit property; however, after the marriage of defendant No. 3, he and his wife had an extremely acrimonial relationship with defendant No.1.

7. On 28.01.2004, Col. Ranjan Narang, a family friend e