HANUMAPPA CHANNAPPA HULLUR (D) BY LRS. versus SHIVAMARUTHAPPA PARAPPA KALLI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 21-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 798 
A 
HANUMAPPA CHAN NAP PA HULLUR (D) BY LRS. 
B 
c 
v. • 
SHIVAMARUTHAPPA PARAPPA KALLI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.411-412 of 2004) 
AUGUST21, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ,] 
Specific performance: 
If vendor-father agrees to sell a property without 
disclosing that it is a joint property and the fact that he had 
only one-third share in the said property and enters into the 
agreement without the concurrence of the other sharers then 
D suit for specific performance cannot be enforced against the 
other sharers - Sale agreement enforced against vendor-
father to the extent of his 1/3rri share in the suit property -
The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the 
suit seeking for specific performance is liable to be set aside 
E to that extent. 
English law on grant of specific performance to the extent 
of ownership/interest in joint property- Discussed. 
Specific performance of contract in piecemeal -
F Permissibility - Held: The Court will not as a generai rule 
compel specific performance of a contract unless it can 
execute the whole contract - This principle is based on the 
general law that the Court cannot specifically perform the 
G contract in piecemeal, but it must be performed in its entirety 
if performed at all - But in the absence of misrepresentation .. 
or misconduct, the general rule is 4hat where a person is 
jointly interested in an estate with another person and purport 
to deal with the entirety, the specific performance will not be 
H 
798 
HANUMAPPA CHANNAPPA HULLUR (D) BY LRS. v. 
799 
SHIVAMARUTHAPPA PARAPPA KALLI 
granted against him as to his share. 
A 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 12 - Partial relief of specific 
performance -
The present case is not a case of the 
performance of a part of the contract but the whole of the 
contract insofar as the vendor is concerned, since he had B 
agreed to sell the property in its entirety but it later turned out 
that he had only 1/3'd share in the property -
The~ sale 
agreement is binding on the vendor as it is without being 
fractured - s. 12 is not attracted. 
Specific Relief Act, 1877: ss. 14 to 17 - Under the old 
Act, the party seeking specific performance under the 
corresponding provision of s. 15 had to pay the entire amount 
c 
of consideration stipulated in the agreement even where he 
was seeking enforcement of a part of the contract but under o 
the present Act he has to pay only part of consideration after 
abatement in the amount of consideration as mentioned in 
the section - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 12, 14 to 17. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 
Per C. Nagappan, J.: 
1. It is not in dispute that the suit property is the joint F 
family property belonging to father and two sons namely 
defendants 1 to 3. Exh. P-1 is the Sale Agreement 
executed by the first defendant father in favour of the 
plaintiff. There is no mention therein that the first 
defendant father was executing the agreement for G 
himself and on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3, who 
are his major sons. There is no averment in the 
agreement that the suit property is joint family property 
and it is being sold for the benefit of joint family. The joint 
family members who jointly owned the property have not H 
800 
SUPREMECOURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A executed the said agreement to enable them to purchase 
another property in the neighbouring village. Neither the 
plaintiff nor the first defendant have produced evidence 
in the case to show that pursuant to Exh. P-1 sale. 
agreement, any property was purchased by the first 
B defendant for the benefit of the estate of the joint family. 
The High Court has rightly held that the agreement 
entered into by the first defendant father without the 
concurrence of the other sharers namely defendants 2 
and 3 to sell the joint family property is not legal and valid. 
C The terms of the sale agreement show that the vendor-
father represented to the vendee that he was the 
absolute owner of the property and he would come along 
with his children.on the day fixed for the registration of 
0 
the sale deed and he is putting the vendee in physical 
possession of the land. In fact, the High Court has 
confirmed the findings of the courts below that the 
plaintiff-vendee is in possession of the suit property. The 
present case is not a case of the performance of a part 
E of the contract but the whole of the contract insofar as 
the vendor is concerned, since he had agreed 

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