Summary
Specific performance was upheld on established readiness and willingness, rejection of a collusive later sale and the finding that the family was bound by its Karta’s agreement. Omission of some legal representatives from the first appeal did not defeat adequate representation of the estate on these facts. The decree was modified to provide reciprocal deposits, refund of the failed later sale’s price, and joint conveyance with possession.
Issues
- Whether the specific-performance decree failed on readiness, estate representation, subsequent purchasers’ status or the Karta’s authority.
- What consequential directions were needed for conveyance and refund to the later purchasers.
Provisions considered
- Section 65, Indian Contract Act, 1872Upon the later sale being declared bad, its consideration could not be retained; the Court referred to restitution and issued a case-specific refund direction under Article 142. (¶ 49–53)
Held
- Readiness and willingness was a factual finding maintained throughout and not challenged at the proper first-appellate stage. No pleading, evidentiary or legal infirmity was demonstrated to justify disturbing it. (¶ 19–23)
- The estate was sufficiently represented by legal representatives with common defences and no conflict of interest; others had given powers of attorney or remained ex parte, and objection was not taken when it could have been cured. The omitted names had also not appeared in the trial decree. No conflicting-decree objection succeeded on these facts. (¶ 24–33)
- The later purchasers failed to prove a prior agreement and the finding of collusion to defeat the plaintiffs’ agreement was sustained. The Karta’s agreement bound the family on the particular findings of consent, including a son’s signature and absence of contemporaneous objection; the legal-necessity defence lacked factual basis here. (¶ 34–46)
- The original vendor and later purchasers were to join in conveyance to pass the title. To end further inter se litigation, the Court directed repayment of the later purchasers’ ₹48,000 and payment by the plaintiffs of the ₹41,000 balance through the executing court. (¶ 47–54)
Result
Appeal disposed of by modifying the decree: vendor’s legal representatives to deposit ₹48,000 for the later purchasers, and plaintiffs to deposit ₹41,000 for the vendor’s representatives, each within three months. Vendor’s representatives and later purchasers to execute the sale deed jointly and deliver possession simultaneously before withdrawing their deposits; executing court to ensure compliance, with execution available on default.