Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI, J.
P. Ramachandra Raju & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M. Dhananjaya Raju & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.Nos.875 & 876 of 2017 and CMP. No.22038 of 2017
Decided On : 01-03-2024
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT OF SALE - SECTION 12 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - The court analyzed the enforceability of a sale agreement executed by the first defendant, determining that it did not bind the non-signatory defendants (2 to 4) as the first defendant lacked authority as Kartha of the joint family. The court interpreted Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, allowing for specific performance of a part of the contract, specifically the first defendant's share, provided the plaintiff relinquished claims to the remaining shares. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to partially allow the appeal for specific performance against the first defendant's share only, while dismissing the claim for possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement with the first defendant, who claimed to sell joint family property without the consent of the other defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the defendants appealed, arguing the first defendant lacked authority to bind them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first defendant did not have the authority to bind the other defendants as Kartha of the joint family. The sale agreement did not mention the joint family status, and the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the property. The court concluded that specific performance could only be granted for the first defendant's share, subject to certain conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale agreement executed by the first defendant binds the non-signatory defendants. 2. Whether the first defendant's statement to bring other co-owners to execute the sale deed is binding. 3. Whether the first defendant acted as Kartha of the family. 4. Whether the courts properly assessed the issue of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a managing member of a joint family cannot unilaterally bind other coparceners without their consent. Specific performance can be granted only for the share of the vendor who entered into the agreement, provided the purchaser relinquishes claims to the remaining shares.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, granting specific performance for the first defendant's 1/4th share, contingent upon the plaintiff's election to take that share and payment of the full consideration. The court also allowed the injunction suit filed by the defendants, setting aside the lower court's decree.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Balaji, J.
[COMMON PRAYER: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No.45 of 2012 & 32 of 2013 on the file of the 1st Additional District Court, Tiruvallur dated 04.07.2017 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirutani dated 04.11.2011 & O.S. No.43 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirutani dated 31.10.2012.]
The defendants 2 to 4, in a suit for specific performance, are the appellants in Second Appeal 875 of 2017. They are also the appellants in S.A. 876 of 2017, having been unsuccessful in their suit seeking a relief of permanent injunction.
2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. The common facts that are material for adjudication in the above Second Appeals are as hereunder:-
3.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 2010 sought for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.09.2006. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant offered to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,39,000/- and a sum of Rs.59,000/- was paid as advance and Rs.2,80,000/- was to be paid as balance sale consideration. The agreement was to be concluded within a period of three months. Pleading that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and also that the plaintiff was put in possession pursuant to the sale agreement and the first defendant having promised to bring the defendants 2 to 4 for execution of the sale deed in his favour and not adhering to any of his promises, constrained the plaintiff to issue a lawyer's notice on 03.02.2007, to which a reply notice was sent on 08.02.2007, with false and untenable allegations, going to the extent of even denying the sale agreement itself.
3.2. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the first defendant colluded with defendants 2 to 4 and made them issue a notice dated 11.03.2007, seeking partition of the suit property, being joint family property. Noticing that the defendants were trying to wriggle out of the contract and trying to disturb the plaintiff’s possession, the suit was instituted for the relief of specific performance. However, despite claiming that the plaintiff was put in possession, by way of an abundant caution the plaintiff also sought for recovery of possession and relief of permanent injunction.
4. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that he was not the manager of the family and that he did not take the consent of defendants 2 to 4 before entering into the sale agreement and further contended that the plaintiff had earlier entered into an agreement for sale on 14.09.2005, promising to complete the transaction within three months and he did not keep his word and in terms of the earlier agreement, the advance amount of Rs.59,000/- paid was to be forfeited. However, there was a mediation and a fresh agreement was entered into on 20.09.2006, with the first defendant alone. The first defendant has further stated that the agreement was time barred and unenforceable and also possession was never handed over to the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint.
5. Defendants 2 to 4 filed a written statement stating that the first defendant had no authority to represent them as Manager and the earlier sale agreement dated 14.09.2005 was executed for a sale consideration of Rs.3,39,000/- and the plaintiff never came forward to pay the balance sale consideration, though having paid advance amount in instalments and subsequently, allowed the agreement to lapse. According to these defendants, the first defendant was neither the Manager nor the Kartha and the agreement dated 20.09.2006 also states that the first defendant has executed it only for purpose of clearing his debts and therefore, the same would not bind these defendants. According to these defendants, they never received the pre-suit notice d
AI
A sale agreement executed by one member of a joint family does not bind other members unless it is established that the executing member had the authority to act as Kartha, and specific performance c....
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be filed only against the persons who have entered into a sale agreement, and the necessity of parties in ....
The court established that specific performance can be enforced despite the necessity for a partition of jointly held property shares.
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 High Court cannot re-assess evidence in second appeals, focusing only on substantial questions of law while confirming findings of lower courts.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.
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
