Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sunil Kumar VS Ram Parkash...
Sunil Kumar VS Ram Parkash - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 34 : Yes, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint family property can be enforced, but only if the alienation is made for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The Karta of a joint Hindu family has the power to alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate, or to discharge antecedent debts not strained with immorality. In this case, the agreement to sell was executed by the Karta (Ram Parkash) and the suit for specific performance was already decreed on 11th May, 1981 by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Kaithal. The court recognized that the Karta''''s power to alienate is valid under these conditions, and the enforcement of the agreement was not barred by the coparceners'''' opposition if the sale was for legal necessity or benefit of the estate.Checking relevance for Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy VS V. Manjunath...
Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy VS V. Manjunath - 2021 8 Supreme 741 : Yes, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint family property can be enforced if the agreement was executed by the Karta of the joint Hindu family for legal necessity or for the betterment of the estate. The Karta has the authority to alienate joint family property for value, and such an agreement binds all undivided members of the family, including minors and widows, even if they did not sign the agreement. The existence of legal necessity is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the Karta enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether legal necessity exists. The agreement to sell cannot be set aside solely on the ground of absence of legal necessity if the transaction was for a legitimate purpose such as meeting family necessities, including payment of government revenue, maintenance of family members, marriage expenses, funeral ceremonies, or expenses related to necessary litigation. In this case, the agreement to sell was executed for the purpose of meeting domestic necessities and was thus valid and enforceable under Hindu law.Checking relevance for Mukesh Kumar VS Col. Harbans Waraiah...
Mukesh Kumar VS Col. Harbans Waraiah - 1999 9 Supreme 338 : Yes, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint family property can be enforced if the sale was made for legal necessity, such as to meet the debts of the joint family business. The court held that even if not all members were formal partners, all major members of the joint family were considered partners of the firm, and the business was deemed a family business. The sale of the property for legal necessity—specifically to meet the firm''''s debts, including income tax liabilities amounting to over Rs. 3 lakhs—was sufficient to justify specific performance. The court further ruled that the Karta''''s authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of the joint family, and the fact that the agreement was for the benefit of the joint family, negated any argument based on power of attorney or lack of partnership status. Therefore, specific performance was granted, except for a 1/5 share of one coparcener, confirming that such suits are maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when the sale is for legal necessity and benefits the joint family.Checking relevance for Vijay A. Mittal VS Kulwant Rai (Dead) Thr. LRs. ...
Vijay A. Mittal VS Kulwant Rai (Dead) Thr. LRs. - 2019 1 Supreme 670 : Yes, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint family property can be enforced if the Karta of the joint Hindu family had the authority to alienate the property for the good of the family, and there was consent of the family members to the transaction. In this case, the Karta (original defendant 1) entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff as the Karta of his family, and the agreement was signed by one son of the defendant, indicating family awareness and consent. Since no issue was framed on ''''legal necessity'''' and the appellants failed to make out a case for interference, the court upheld the enforceability of the agreement. Additionally, the sale to defendants 2 and 3 was held to be collusive and bad in law, reinforcing that the plaintiffs'''' agreement was valid and enforceable.Checking relevance for Makhan Singh (D) By LRs VS Kulwant Singh...
Makhan Singh (D) By LRs VS Kulwant Singh - 2007 3 Supreme 241 : A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint family property is not enforceable if the property is indeed joint family property. However, the burden lies on the party asserting the joint family character of the property to prove it. A property cannot be presumed to be joint family property merely because a joint family exists. If the property was purchased from the individual income of a family member (e.g., from employment income), it is considered self-acquired property, and a son inherits it in his individual capacity, not as a Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. Therefore, an agreement to sell a share in such self-acquired property is enforceable. In this case, the High Court held that the 29.2/3 marlas of land, purchased from the income of the father (Dula Singh), was self-acquired, and thus the agreement to sell his share was enforceable. The 11 marlas, however, were held to be joint family property and thus not subject to sale by a co-parcener without the consent of the family, making the agreement unenforceable for that portion.
