BALMUKAND versus KAMLA WATI & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 27-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
321 
in State of Ra;asthan v. Shiv Singh(') and by the Allaha-
. bad High Court in A/lahdia v. State( 2 ). 
1!164 
Faddi 
v. 
We therefore hold that the objection to the admissibility 51• 1• P~!d::f1h1• 
of ,the first information report lodged by the appellant is not 
-
sound and that the Courts below have rightly admitted it in Raghubar Day-11. 
evidence and have made proper use of it. 
The circumstances held established by the High Court 
are sufficient, in our opinion, to reach the conclusion that 
Guiab was murdered by the appellant who was the last person 
in whose company the deceased was seen alive and who 
knew where the dead body lay and who gave untrue expla-
nation about his knowing it in the report lodged by him and 
gave no explanation in Court as to how he separated from 
the deceased. 
We therefore dismiss the appeal. 
Appeal di.rmi1sed. 
BALMUKAND 
v. 
KAMLA WA TI & ORS. 
(K. SUBBA RAo AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Contract by manager to sell joint property-Specific Performance when 
nrdered-Hindu Law-Joint family. 
The appellant entered into a contract with the karta for the purchase 
of property belonging to a joint Hindu family. 
This property consisted 
of a fractional share belonging to the family in a large plot of land. 
Earnest 1noney was paid to the karta. 
As the karta did not execute the 
sale deed the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance. The 
other members who are the brothers of the k:arta and who were adults 
(') A.I.R. 1962 Raj 3. 
134-159 S.C.-21 
(') 1959 All. L.J. 340. 
1964 
Januaryt 21, 
1964 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
at the time of the contract were also impleaded in the suit as defendants. 
The suit was resisted on the ground that there was no legal necessity and 
that the contract for sale was not for the benefit of the family. The trial 
court as well as the High Court upheld these contentions. 
Before this Court it was contended that even though there was no 
legal necessity the transaction was for the benefit of the family which 
the karta as a prudent owner was entitled to enter into for the benefit of 
the family. 
Held: (i) For a transaction to be regarded as one which is of benefit 
to the family it need not necessarily be only of a defensive character. but 
what transactions would be for the benefit of the family would depend on 
the facts and circumstances of each case. 
In each case the Court must 
be 11atisficd from the material before it that it was in fact such as con· 
ferred or was necessarily expected to confer ben~fit on the family at the 
time it was entered into. 
(ti) No part of the joint family property coc,J be parted with or 
~eed to be parted with by the manager on the grouncl of alleged benefit 
to the family when the transaction is opposed by the :101Jit members of 
the family. 
(iii) In the present case the appropriate pleas were not raised by the 
plaintiff nor the necessary evidence led. The granting of specific perfor-
mance is always in the discretion of the court. In the facts and circum-
stances of the case the courts below were justified in refusing to order 
specific performance and the appeal is dismissed. 
Jagatnarain v. Mathura Das, I.L.R. SO All. 
969, Honooman Prasod 
Pandey v. Babooee Munraj Koonwaree, (1856) 6 Moo. I.A. 393, Sahu Ram 
Chandra v. Bhup Singh. l.L.R. 39 All. 437, Palaniappa Chetty v. Sree-
math Daiya.rikamony Pandara Sannadhi, 44 I.A. 147, Sita/ Prasad Singh 
v. Ajablal Mander, I.L.R. 18 Pat. 306 and In the matter of A. V. Va•u-
devan & Ors. Minors, A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 260. referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7 of 
1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 
14, 1957 of the Punjab High Court in RF.A. No. 219 of 
1950. 
N. C. Chatterjee, H. L. Mittal, S. S. Khanduja and 
Ganpat Ral, for the appellant. 
Ram Lubhaya and S. D. Sekhri, for respondents Nos. 
1-12. 
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondents Nos. 
13-15. 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
323 
January 27, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MUDHOLKAR J.-This is a i;ilaintiff's appeal from the 
dismissal of his suit for specific i;ierformance of a contract 
for the sale of 3 /20th share of land in certain fields situate 
in Mauza Faizpur of Batala in the State of Punjab. He had 
instituted the suit in the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, 
Batala, who dismissed it in its entirety. Upon appeal the 
High Court of Punjab, while upholding the dismissal of the 
plaintiff'

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.