Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants (legal representatives of the original defendant No.1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3) against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had upheld the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.06.1979. The original plaintiffs, Kulwant Rai and Atul Kumar, had sued for specific performance of an agreement entered into with Amar Nath (defendant No.1) for sale of a property in Ambala Cantt for Rs.46,000, with Rs.5,000 paid as earnest money. The plaintiffs alleged that they were ready and willing to perform their part, but Amar Nath sold the property to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 27.11.1981, committing breach. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the property was joint Hindu family property and Amar Nath, as Karta, was not competent to sell without legal necessity. The First Appellate Court reversed, decreeing the suit, holding that the sale to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was collusive and that the agreement was binding on all coparceners. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the finding on readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs was a finding of fact, not challenged by cross-objection, and thus binding. On the issue of non-impleadment of some legal representatives in the first appeal, the Court held that since the majority were on record and had common defense, the estate was sufficiently represented, and no conflicting decrees arose. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Finding of fact - The finding that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement is a finding of fact based on evidence. Once recorded and not challenged by cross-objection, it becomes binding on the High Court and the Supreme Court unless perverse or contrary to law (Paras 19-23). B) Hindu Law - Joint Hindu Family Property - Karta's Power to Sell - The Karta of a joint Hindu family can enter into an agreement to sell family property, and such agreement is binding on all coparceners if it is for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. The First Appellate Court held the agreement binding on all coparceners (Paras 14, 16). C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 22 Rule 4 - Impleadment of Legal Representatives - Non-impleadment of some legal representatives in appeal does not render the decree invalid if the majority of legal representatives are already on record and the estate is sufficiently represented. The objection must be raised at the earliest opportunity (Paras 27-32). D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - Appeal - Conflicting Decrees - No conflicting decrees arise when the First Appellate Court decrees the suit against some legal representatives while the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit against others remains, because the legal representatives were all on record and had common defense; the non-impleaded ones were not necessary parties (Paras 26-33).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal and upholding the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell joint Hindu family property executed by the Karta, and whether the non-impleadment of some legal representatives in the first appeal resulted in conflicting decrees.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the decree for specific performance granted by the First Appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Finding of fact
- Joint Hindu family property
- Karta
- Legal representatives
- Impleadment
- Conflicting decrees
