Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha, J
Ayyasami Udayar – Appellant
Versus
Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has filed the present second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 08.04.2002 (Ex.A1) or in the alternative to refund the advance amount paid by him to the defendants 1 to 3 together with interest.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.
3. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
The suit properties belong to the joint family of the defendants 1 to 7. The defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 on 08.04.2002 (Ex.A1) and a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid towards advance by the plaintiff. The time for payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- was fixed as two years. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he requested the defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed. Since the defendants 1
Specific performance of a contract involving joint family properties requires consent from all co-sharers; failure to implead necessary parties renders the agreement unenforceable.
The court affirmed that agreements for the sale of shares in joint family properties can be specifically enforced, if properly documented, despite disputes over full title.
The court established that specific performance can be enforced despite the necessity for a partition of jointly held property shares.
Agreement of sale is unenforceable where defendants had no absolute right and title over suit schedule property to sell the same and plaintiff was aware of same.
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....
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 ....
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
