2007 (3) TMI 816 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Execution of agreements to sell building and machinery.
2. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the agreement.
3. Breach of the agreement by the defendant.
4. Enforceability of the agreement regarding the sale of the building.
5. Nature of the suit property as ancestral and/or Joint Hindu Family property.
6. Validity and enforceability of the agreement to sell.
7. Competence of the suit for specific performance regarding the sale of machinery.
8. Proper description of the suit property.

Summary:

Issue 1: Execution of Agreements to Sell Building and Machinery

The Trial Court held that the execution of the agreements Ex.P-1 and P-2, as well as the receipt of earnest money by the defendant, had been proved. The defendant had initially denied the execution of the agreements but later admitted to it, leading to a finding by all three courts to that effect.

Issue 2: Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff

The Trial Court found that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contracts, whereas the defendant had not been ready and willing to perform his part, thereby committing a breach of the agreement.

Issue 3: Breach of the Agreement by the Defendant

The Trial Court held that the defendant had committed a breach of the agreement by not executing the sale deeds as per the terms of the agreements.

Issue 4: Enforceability of the Agreement Regarding the Sale of the Building

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement to sell pertaining to 1/8 share in the machinery of the ice factory was not enforceable. The remedy available to the plaintiff was to claim a refund of the earnest money with damages, if any. The second agreement pertaining to the sale of a share in the land and building was also unenforceable as the property was Joint Hindu Family property.

Issue 5: Nature of the Suit Property as Ancestral and/or Joint Hindu Family Property

The Trial Court observed that the entire property had the character of Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of the four brothers. The onus to prove that there was no joint family lay on the plaintiff, which he had been unable to discharge.

Issue 6: Validity and Enforceability of the Agreement to Sell

The High Court reversed the findings of the lower courts, decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement Ex.P-1 regarding 1/4 share of the land measuring 29.2/3 marlas on payment of the remaining sale consideration. The suit regarding the sale of 1/4 share in the land measuring 11 marlas and the building, which was Joint Hindu Family property, was dismissed. The suit for specific performance of agreement Ex.P-2 pertaining to the sale of 1/8 share in the machinery was decreed on payment of the remaining sale consideration.

Issue 7: Competence of the Suit for Specific Performance Regarding the Sale of Machinery

The Trial Court held that the agreement to sell pertaining to the machinery was not enforceable, and the plaintiff could at best claim damages or compensation for the breach of this agreement.

Issue 8: Proper Description of the Suit Property

The High Court found that there was no presumption that the property owned by the members of the Joint Hindu Family could be deemed to be of the same character. The onus to prove such a status lay on the party asserting it.

Final Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the onus to prove that funds were available with the family to purchase the land lay on the defendant. The appeal filed by Kulwant Singh was allowed, and the suit was decreed in toto. The appeal filed by the LRs. of Makhan Singh was dismissed.