Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.39 seconds)I. Nagiah vs A. Venkatarama Sastrulu And Seven Ors. on 19 April, 1912
A person is entitled to specific performance of a contract by a member of the Hindu family to sell is share of the Family property. But there is no question of part performance in that case. If the learned Judges intended to go further and lay down that if a junior member of a Hindu family agrees to sell any specific property belonging to his family a decree may be passed against him to sell his share of that specific property, I am unable to agree with that view. Because the junior member is unable to perform the whole of his part of the contract by conveying the entire property agreed to be sold and for the same reason that he is not entitled to claim any specific property till partition, conveyance of a portion is not a part of the contract 'as he can perform' in the terms of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act. On the view that a co-parcener cannot alienate any specific property no specific performance can be decreed.
Ramaraju vs Ramalingam And Ors. on 7 March, 1902
In Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam (1903) I.L.R., 26 Mad., 74, the contract to sell was by one of three members of a joint family. It was held by the Subordinate Judge that the contract was not binding on the other members of the family and the suit was dismissed against all the defendants, as he considered it impossible to apportion the consideration for the sale and the property agreed to be conveyed. In Second Appeal Bashyam Ayyangar and Moore, JJ., held that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the brothers who were not parties to the contract but that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance against the person who agreed to sell the property, without any determination of the question whether the sale by him would or would not bind the interests of the other defendants in the property. No authorities are cited nor is Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act considered.
Davvur Subba Reddi vs Kakuturi Venkatrami Reddi Alias Venka ... on 24 September, 1914
I may add that Sankaran Nayar, J., who was a party to Srinivasa Reddi v. Sivarama Reddi (1909) I.L.R.,32 Mad., 320 refused to pass such a decree when the same question came up before him for decision in Subba v. Venkatrami (1915) I.L.R., 38 Mad., 1187. I do not think the Court ought to pass a decree directing a sale of the property ordered to be conveyed when it finds that the person agreeing to convey was only a co-parcener with others and the agreement would not bind their interests.
Srinivasa Reddi vs Sivarama Reddi on 1 December, 1908
32. I am also of opinion that Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act applies to such cases. With all deference I am unable to follow the reasoning of Sankaran Nayar, J., in Srinivasa Reddi v. Sivarama Reddi (1909) I.L.R., 32 Mad., 320, to the effect that Section 15 would have application only when the person agreeing to sell has no interest in any portion of the property agreed to be sold. No such restriction appears in the section and the language applies to all cases where a party cannot perform the whole of what be contracts to do, whether such inability is due to his not having a good title to the property agreed to be conveyed or has a good title over only a part of the property. The section only reproduces the English Law with the difference that where the party elects to take what he can get he can only do so by giving up claims to compensation; and I can find no such distinction in any of the cases though joint tenants"are entitled per tout et per mie in the joint property.
Section 17 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Chinnu Pillai vs Kalimuthu Chetti on 27 January, 1911
44. The next question is whether specific performance can be decreed if the plaintiff is willing to take a conveyance of the share of the co-parcener on his paying the full consideration. I am of opinion that there is nothing to prevent the Court from doing this. The decision of the Full Bench in Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti (1913) I.L.R., 85 Mad., 47(F.B.) has finally settled that the share of the alienee from the co-parcener is fixed with reference to what it was at the date of the alienation and is not fluctuating with reference to subsequent events. The co-parcener has a share in each item of the joint family property and there is no difficulty in determining the share of a co-parcener on a given date. Joint tenants are seized per mie et per tout and as between themselves have separate rights. On the date of the agreement to convey the person contracting to sell would have a share determined by the number of the co-parceners, and, the authorities in this Presidency having given the co-parcener a right to alienate his share in a specific item of property, there is no reason why he should not be directed to sell his share especially as that share is not subject to subsequent fluctuation. If the purchaser is willing to pay the full consideration, waive all claim to compensation or damage, and take only the share which his vendor is entitled to, nobody can possibly be prejudiced; while on the other hand it may be distinctly to the advantage of the vendor and co-parcener. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the person in whose favour the agreement is entered into from filing a suit for damages, obtaining a decree and attaching and bringing to sale the share of the person who contracted to sell; thereby effecting indirectly what could be done directly if the Court grants him the share.
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Gurusami Sastrial And Ors. vs Ganapathia Pillai on 8 March, 1882
47. So far as the decisions in India go, specific performance has been decreed of the share to which the vendor was entitled if the purchaser would take it. In Gurusami v. Ganapathia (1882) I.L.R., 5 Mad., 337 (F.B.), a decree was passed directing conveyance of the half share to which the party contracting was entitled. The fact that Section 15 would be a bar to the abatement in the price ordered does not affect the granting of the relief as to the share if the purchaser is willing to take it without claiming any abatement in the price.