IMPORTANT POINT
A decree for specific performance cannot be granted for joint property without the consent of all joint owners, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, in Title Appeal No. 18/2012.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree 07.09.2015, the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2012, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 22/2006,

4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants submits that while admitting this appeal for hearing, vide order dated 22.02.2016, no substantial question of law was framed and in the order dated 22.02.2016, only the grounds have been mentioned and as such, there is a requirement of framing the substantial question of law here in this appeal. Mr. Mukherjee referring to page No. 3 of the memo of appeal, submits that there he has suggested three substantial questions of law and the same are read as under:

1. Whether the decree for specific performance of contract could have been passed in respect of a joint and unpartitioned plot of land on the strength of agreement entered into by one of the joint owners and denied and objected to by the other joint owner?

2. Whether Ext.7, a receipt issued by defendant No. 1 could have been binding upon defendant No. 2, when such receipt was not issued as per his knowledge or consent, nor the said receipt had any link or relevancy or connection with the alleged agreement entered between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and disputed by defendant No. 2?

3. Whether in absence of any evidence, oral or documentary that defendant No. 2 had agreed to sell the un-partitioned joint property or received any payment, any decree for specific performance of contract could have been passed and whether such a decree could have been enforceable on defendant No. 2?

5. Accordingly, Mr. Mukherjee submits that out of the three suggested substantial questions of law, all the substantial questions of law are material and accordingly, it is contended to formulate the aforesaid substantial questions of law to decide this appeal.

6. Whereas, Mr. Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submission so advanced by Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Saharia referring to Ext.1, a Sale Agreement, of the Title Suit No. 22/2006, submits that vide said Agreement, both the brothers have agreed to sale a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas, as described in Schedule-‘B’ of the plaint, fixing sale consideration @ Rs. 42,000/-and both of them had put their signatures therein. Mr. Saharia further submits that vide Money Receipt-Ext.7, one of the brothers had received an amount of Rs. 30,000/-from the respondent being the sale consideration for said plot of land and that the decree was granted by the learned trial Court in respect of the same plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas described in Schedule-‘B’ of the plaint and that the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court both have considered all those aspects in their respective judgments and as such, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same.

7. Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.09.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, in Title Appeal No. 18/2012, and the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2012, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 22/2006, and also gone through the suggested substantial questions of law.

8. It appears that the respondent herein had instituted a Title Suit No.22 of 2006 for specific performance of contract and also for injunction. His case is that he entered into an oral agreement for