A contract to sell joint family property is not enforceable unless the Plaintiff proves that there was legal necessity for the sale or that he had made proper inquiries to satisfy himself as to the existence of such necessity.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Patnaik, J. - Original Plaintiff is the Appellant against the judgment and decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 15 of 1969. He having died during the pendency of the first appeal, his legal representatives have been substituted. The Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract and for a declaration that Defendant No. 1 and his legal representatives did not acquire any title pursuant to the sale-deed dated 3-2-1967 executed by Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff also prayed for restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession over the land in question.

2. Plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is that the disputed property appertains to Jamabandi No. 21, Khata No. 95, mauza Choudhury Bazar and measures Ac.0.025 decimals with the house standing thereon. The said property belonged to Kartik Nandy and Gopal Nandy. Late Dolagobinda purchased the same from the two Nandy brothers under a registered sale deed dated 30th of March, 1938, and possessed the same as owner thereof. Dolagobinda inducted the Plaintiff as a tenant and Plaintiff was paying monthly rent. Dolagobinda was the Karta of the family consisting of himself and his sons. Krushna, one of his sons, died in 1963 leaving behind Defendants 8 to 15. Dolagobinda wanted to sell away the property for family necessity. The Plaintiff who was in possession of the land as tenant offered to purchase the same. The consideration was fixed at Rs. 8,000/- and Dolagobinda took an advance of Rs. 1,500/-. Dolagobinda took further advance on different dates towards the agreed consideration money and in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, the Plaintiff was to pay the balance consideration money of Rs. 6,000/- within a period of three years from the date of the contract i.e. 28-5-1963. Dolagobinda, however, died prior to expiry of three years period on 8-1-1966 leaving behind Defendants 2 to 15 as his heirs and these legal, heirs were bound by the terms of the contract. But when the Plaintiff offered for the balance consideration money and requested them to execute the sale deed, they did not pay any attention to the Plaintiff's request. The Plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to pay the balance consideration money of Rs. 6,000/-. The Plaintiff came to learn that Defendant No. 3 had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of Defendant No. 1. Therefore, the Plaintiff was forced to file the suit for specific performance. It was further alleged in the plaint that the Defendants had the notice and knowledge of the contract between the Plaintiff and Dolagobinda and even knowing about the pre-existing agreement to sell, the Defendant No. 1 purchased the property. With these allegations, the Plaintiff filed the suit for enforcing the contract between him and Dolagobinda.

3. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. According to him the Plaintiff took the signature of Dolagobinda on certain blank papers on false representation and one such paper was converted to a deed of agreement. There was no necessity for Dolagobinda who was a rich man to enter into a contract to sell the property in question and Dolagobinda never agreed to sell the suit property nor he ever executed any document on receipt of a part consideration as alleged in the plaint. He denied to have any knowledge about the so-called contract between the Plaintiff and late Dolagobinda. According to him under the registered partition deed dated 23rd of June, 1954 the suit property fell to the share of Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 3 executed a registered sale deed on 3-3-1967 in favour of Defendant No. 1 after receiving due consideration therefor. The said sale was genuine and for consideration and Defendant No. 1 acquired valid title on the basis of the sale deed. Defendant No. 1 also contended that the suit was b