9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are specific performance of an agreement to sell a property, defense of joint family property, and determination of Mitakashra Coparcenary status. Specific Performance of Agreement: The appellant and the father of the respondents entered into an agreement for the sale of land. The father of the respondents paid a portion of the consideration but the appellant failed to execute a sale deed. A suit for specific performance was filed. The trial court decreed the suit, disbelieving the appellant's defense of forcible execution of the agreement. The appellate court allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the property was a joint family property. Defense of Joint Family Property: The appellant raised the defense that the property was a joint family property. The first appellate court held that jointness in the family was established based on evidence and that the suit property was part of the joint family. However, the court did not determine if the appellant's signatures were forcibly obtained. Mitakashra Coparcenary Status: The distinction between a Mitakashra Coparcenary property and Joint Family property was discussed. The characteristics of a Mitakakashra Coparcenary were highlighted. The court noted that the first appellate court did not establish the appellant's membership in a Mitakashra co-parcenary. The court emphasized that for the purpose of specific performance, a presumption of partition can be drawn based on separate possession admitted by the appellant. Conclusion: The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents, upholding the specific performance of the agreement and rejecting the defense of joint family property. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment and decree. The court also discussed the discretionary jurisdiction under the Specific Relief Act but ultimately upheld the decision of the trial court.
|
