Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
R. Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
S. Durairaj – Respondent
A.S. No. 982 of 2012, M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 23-02-2024
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 07.01.2008, where the defendants, a father-son duo, agreed to sell joint family property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid a total of Rs. 7,50,000 as advance but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, leading to the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to execute the sale deed, finding that the sale was for legal necessity and benefit of the family, and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? 2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 3. Whether there was legal necessity to sell the second defendant's share? 4. What relief is the plaintiff entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the father, as the Karta of the joint family, had the authority to enter into the sale agreement for legal necessity and benefit of the estate, and that the absence of the minor's signature did not invalidate the agreement.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to grant specific performance of the sale agreement.
JUDGMENT :
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 passed in O.S.No. 882 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
1. The Appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 passed in O.S.No. 882 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the Appellant is the 2nd defendant and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit was filed for specific performance directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in terms of the agreement of sale deed dated 07.01.2008 and directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit. In alternative to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.8,99,457.85/- with subsequent interest of Rs.4,00,000/- at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of realization. Creating charge over the property for a sum of Rs.8,99,457.85/- with subsequent interest on Rs.7,50,000/- at the rate of 24% per annum.
3. According, to the plaintiff, the first defendant T.Rajendran approached the plaintiff to sell his property to discharge their debts and promised to execute a sale deed within a period of three months from the date of agreement. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property from the defendants. The defendants are father and son. They constitute a Hindu Joint Family. The suit property is the joint family property of the defendants and obtained the same by virtue of registered partition deed dated 12.10.1984.
4. The further contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendants offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.17,25,000/-. Accordingly, on 07.01.2008 the plaintiff and the defendants have entered into a sale agreement and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was received as advance under the said agreement. It was agreed between the parties to pay a further additional advance amount for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 29.02.2008 and the sale will be completed within ten months. In the sale agreement, the plaintiff was empowered to put up layout in the suit property and also entered into agreements with third parties for sale of layout plots and to receive advance from the prospective purchasers of the sites in the said layout. As agreed the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as additional advance on 28.02.2008 which has been duly acknowledged by the defendants by making endorsement in the sale agreement dated 07.01.2008. Again, on 23.05.2008 the plaintiff paid another advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and the same was also acknowledged by the defendants by making endorsement in the sale agreement. The plaintiff in total paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as advance to the defendants. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and to complete the sale as agreed by them. The plaintiff started to form the layout by leveling the land, forming house sites by digging and ditching etc., which had incurred a considerable expenditure thereof. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction so as to enable him to sell the sites in favour of the prospective purchasers, the defendants were postponing the sale, on one pretext or the other.
5. On 05.07.2008, the 1st defendant in order to avoid the agreement, issued a legal notice in the name of the 2nd defendant represented by his guardian, alleging that the sale agreement dated 07.01.2008 was not in the interest or for the benefit of the minor. Hence, the plaintiff issued a reply notice on 12.07.2008 pointing out that the defendant being the Karta/Guardian of the 2nd defendant was empowered under law to enter into an agreement to sell the suit property and the sale of the suit property was in the interest and for the benefit of the minor namely the 2nd def
The Karta of a Hindu joint family can alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and such alienation is binding on minor coparceners if proven necessary.
Agreement of sale post-partition binds only signatories' shares; lacks Karta recital or legal necessity, does not bind non-signatory coparceners' independent shares.
The authority of a Karta to sell joint family property requires the consent of other adult coparceners; unilateral sales by the Karta are invalid without such consent.
The court established that a manager of a Hindu joint family can validly enter into a sale agreement binding on minor members for legal necessity, and that continuous readiness and willingness to per....
Specific performance of an agreement is discretionary and unenforceable if not all necessary parties consent, and plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness to perform their obligations.
The court upheld specific performance of a contract where the plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness to fulfill obligations; joint family property claims were insufficient without evidence of le....
A sale agreement remains enforceable if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness to perform and if the defendant fails to substantiate claims of fraud or lack of authority.
The legal principle established is that in cases involving the sale of joint family property, the burden of proving legal necessity lies with the purchaser only if the plaintiffs have properly pleade....
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
