The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior contracts.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2022 and 24.11.2022 respectively passed in Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2020 by the learned Principal District Judge, Giridih reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2014 and 03.02.2014 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 36 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Giridih.

2. The case arises out of suit seeking specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property.

3. The appellants and Proforma Respondent No. 6 are representing the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 of the suit. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 are representing the original Defendant No.1 and Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff of the suit.

4. The suit was filed by Ritesh Kumar Gupta (plaintiff) seeking a decree against the original Defendant No.1 for specific performance of registered agreement of sale dated 06.09.2005 (exhibit-1) for sale of suit property. The suit was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set-aside by the learned Appellate Court and the appellate court directed the legal heirs and successors of Kishore Prasad Gupta [original Defendant No.1] to execute the registered sale-deed with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The legal heirs and successors of Kishore Prasad Gupta [original Defendant No.1] have not filed any appeal. The appeal has been filed by the defendant no.2 (purchaser of the suit property and wife of defendant no.3) and other legal heirs of defendant no.3 and also by the legal heirs of defendant no.4. The defendant no.2 has purchased the suit property vide registered sale-deed dated 29.05.2006 (exhibit-C) executed by Kishore Prasad Gupta [original Defendant No.1] pursuant to purported unregistered agreement of sale dated 06.05.2005 (exhibit-B) between Kishore Prasad Gupta [original Defendant No.1] and defendant no.4. The registered sale-deed dated 29.05.2006 (exhibit-C) has been executed by Kishore Prasad Gupta (original defendant no.1) through the power of attorney holder, original defendant no.3. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract being registered agreement dated 06.09.2005 (exhibit-1) between the plaintiff and the original defendant no.1.

5. The suit was dismissed primarily on the ground that the suit property was a joint property of defendant nos.1 to 4 and therefore the registered agreement of sale dated 06.09.2005 (exhibit-1) was not a valid document and was void. While dismissing the suit the learned trial Court also held that the defendant no.1 was not entitled to make any agreement of sale and the joint share cannot be alienated without the consent of other coparceners. The learned first appellate Court reversed the judgement and decree holding that there was a valid family partition and the suit property was the exclusive property of the defendant no.1 which could be alienated by him and consequently the registered agreement of sale dated 06.09.2005 (exhibit-1) was valid. The learned appellate Court held the readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract in favour of the plaintiff. The learned first appellate Court also held that the unregistered agreement of sale dated 06.05.2005 (exhibit-B) was an afterthought to by-pass the binding effect of registered agreement of sale dated 06.09.2005 (exhibit-1).

6. This second appeal was admitted on 02