JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for specific performance of contract.

2. Case of the plaintiff was that defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit schedule property. To press his legal necessity, defendant no.1 approached her in the year 1986 to sell the land. She agreed to the same. Accordingly consideration was fixed at Rs.16,000/-. Since the defendant no.1 belonged to scheduled tribe and she is brahmin by caste, the defendant no.1 filed O.L.R. Case No.52/86 before the Revenue Officer, Sadar Sub-Division, Sambalpur under Sec.22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (“O.L.R. Act”) for transfer of the suit land. Since defendant no.1 was in need of money to repair his house, he approached the plaintiff for advance payment of Rs.3000/-. She paid an amount of Rs.3000/-towards advance to the defendant no.1 on 19.5.1987. On the same day, the defendant no.1 executed an agreement to sell in her favour. He agreed to execute a registered sale deed within a month of receipt of the permission from the competent authority and on receipt of the balance payment of Rs.13,000/-. The Revenue Officer accorded permission on 29.8.1987. She approached the defendant no.1 for execution of the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration amount. But then, the defendant no.1 maintained a sphinx like silence. Thereafter, she sent notice on 24.7.90 to the defendant no.1 for execution of the registered sale deed. Defendant no.1 replied that he had returned the advance amount of Rs.3000/-to her husband in presence of the defendant nos.2 and 3 because she did not like to purchase the suit schedule land. It was further pleaded that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. The defendant no.1 filed a written statement contending inter alia that husband of the plaintiff approached him to purchase a piece of land. The suit land belonged to him and his co-sharers. He, being one of the co-sharers, applied permission for transfer of the suit land and other lands in favour of the plaintiff and others. He had received an advance amount of Rs.3000/-. He had not executed the deed of agreement to sell. After the Revenue Officer accorded permission, the plaintiff did not like to purchase the suit land and suggested to sell the land to defendant no.3. He filed a petition to amend the order of permission and substitute the name of defendant no.3 in place of plaintiff. Thereafter he refunded the amount received towards advance to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that he put his signature in good faith on a blank paper. After refund of money, he wanted to take back the stamp paper. But the plaintiff surreptitiously converted the same into an agreement to sell. The agreement to sell is forged and fabricated.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their respective cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the defendant no.1 had executed an agreement to sell, Ext.1, and agreed to sell the land for a consideration of Rs.16,000/-. He had received an amount of Rs.3000/-towards advance. Plaintiff was/is willing to perform her part of contract, but defendant no.1 failed to perform his part of contract. Held so, it decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant no.1 filed T.A. No.19 of 1998 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur. Learned appellate court came to hold that the suit land is the joint family property of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has no exclusive saleable interest. Specific performance may not be decreed, where the person agreeing to transfer the joint family property is a mere coparcener and where the transfer would not pass the interests of the other coparceners. A single member of the joint family cannot transfer the joint family property, unless he is karta or manager of family transferr