The court emphasized the necessity of convincing evidence for enforcing oral agreements, particularly in property disputes under the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

Defendants 1 and 5 in a suit for partition and for specific performance of an agreement for sale, are the appellants.

2. One Subbaraman is the common ancestor. He had a son named Seshadri. His wife is Thailambal. They had three sons and three daughters. The sons are Subramanian, Gopalakrishnan and Seshanarayanan. Seshanarayanan is the plaintiff. The wife of late Subramanian is the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant conveyed her rights to the 5th defendant under Ext B2 Settlement Deed. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the wife and children respectively, of Gopalakrishnan. According to the plaintiff, the property was obtained by Subbaraman under Ext A1 Kanam Deed of the year 1908. On his death the property devolved on his son Seshadri. The plaintiff claims share as one among the legal heirs of Seshadri. It is also contended that the daughters of Seshadri had released their rights in favour of the plaintiff as per a Release Deed dated 28.11.2006. It is further contended that the 1st defendant had entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiff to convey her undivided rights in the property for a consideration of D75,000/-. The entire consideration was paid on 15.05.2003. However, the conveyance is yet to be executed. It is accordingly that the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and for specific performance of the oral agreement.

3. First defendant contended that the property was taken on lease by her husband Subramanian in the year 1139 ME and that purchase certificate had been obtained from the Land Tribunal. On the death of Subramanian, the rights devolved on the 1st defendant and Thailambal, the mother of Subramanian in equal shares each entitled to one half. The rights of the 1st defendant was conveyed by her under Ext B2 Gift Deed in favour of her brother's son, the 5th defendant. The alleged agreement for sale was denied. Though the receipt of D75,000/- was admitted by the 1st defendant, it was contended that it was paid after the death of her husband Subramanian in consideration of his services rendered in a hotel run by the family. The amount was paid as per the decision of the members of the family. It was prayed that, in the partition to be effected, the house situated in the plaint schedule property may be allotted to her share.

4. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 102/168 shares, that the 1st defendant is entitled to 20/168 shares and defendants 2 to 4 together entitled for 46/168 shares. The agreement for sale pleaded by the plaintiff was upheld, and the plaintiff was granted a decree for specific performance in respect of the share of the 1st defendant.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. The points that arise for determination are: (i) Was the plaint schedule property the exclusive property of Subramanian, the late husband of the 1st defendant or was it their family property?

(ii) In the event of partition what are the shares of parties?

(iii) Is the finding of the trial court upholding the oral agreement for sale, sustainable on the evidence?

(iv) Is the decree for specific performance justified on the materials?

7. Though the 1st defendant would contend that her husband Subramanian was the tenant of the property and that the purchase certificate was obtained from the Land Tribunal in his name, Ext A1 Kanam Deed cuts at the root of such case. It evidences that the right vested with the grandfather of Subramanian-Subbaraman. It is not in dispute that the parties were governed by the Mitakshara Law of inheritance. Therefore, on his death, his sons Subramanian, Gopalakrishnan and the plaintiff (Seshanarayanan) formed a coparcenary and property became a coparcenary property. There is no evidence to show that Subramanian had taken the property on lease in his own name. The mere fact that proceedings were initiated before the Land Tribunal in the name of Subramanian does not vest exclusive right on him. The purchase certificate obtained b