Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Rubi Devi – Appellant
Versus
Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Rabindra Prasad Gupta – Respondent
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]
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 co....
The grant of specific performance is discretionary, considering undue hardship to subsequent bona fide purchasers, outweighing the plaintiff's claim based on a disputed agreement.
The court ruled that a specific performance claim requires the existence of valid foundational documents, particularly when minors are involved in property transactions, necessitating a retrial to pr....
A co-sharer in joint property can only transfer their interest, and an agreement to sell is unenforceable if it does not include all necessary parties and if it is contingent upon conditions that hav....
A contract for the sale of property can only be enforced to the extent of a party's ownership rights, particularly where ancestral claims exist and co-ownership affects transactional authority.
A co-owner may execute a sale agreement for their share in a joint property, but cannot bind other co-owners not part of the agreement, making it enforceable only to the extent of the signing co-owne....
The court affirmed that ancestral property cannot be sold without consent from all coparceners, rendering the sale agreement unenforceable.
Point of law: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, where....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
