KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS. versus KALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 08-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 12 S.C.R. 772 
KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (0) BY LRS. 
v. 
KALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (0) AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 8, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 12 - Applicability of -
Specific performance of contract - Agreement of sale of a 
C house - Representation by vendor that he was absolute 
owner of the house - Receipt of advance money by vendor -
Vendor's wife sought cancellation of agreement on the ground 
that the vendor was not absolute owner of the house and she 
owned half share in the house which, by virtue of s. 14 of Hindu 
D Succession Act, was received by her on death of her son -
Suit for specific performance of contract by vendee - Held: 
Vendee cannot seek specific performance of contract of entire 
house, and decree for specific performance can be granted 
only to the extent of vendor's share in the house -
The 
E husband under such circumstances, in the absence of any 
express authority from the wife could not alienate or otherwise 
dispose of her Streedhana property - It was not a case of the 
performance of a part of the contract but the whole of the 
contract insofar as the vendor was concerned since he had 
F agreed to sell the property in its entirety but it later turned out 
that vendor had only half share in the property and his wife 
held the remaining half - Thus, the agreement was not binding 
on the vendor's wife - s. 12 was not applicable in facts of the 
case -s. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was a/so not 
G applicable since it was not the case of the vendee that the 
vendor was the ostensible owner of the property - Right to 
invoke s. 4 of the Partition Act a/so not available to the vendee 
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.41 - Partition Act, 1893 
- s. 4 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14 - Contract. 
H 
772 
KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS. v. 
773 
KALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) 
The original defendant no.1-vendor entered into an 
A 
agreement of sale with the original plaintiff-vendee in 
respect of the suit house for a consideration of Rs.1 lac. 
The vendee paid Rs.10,000/- as advance and agreed to 
pay remaining consideration of Rs.90,000/- by 20.6.1984 
whereupon sale deed was to be executed and registered. 
B 
On 24.3.1984, the defendant no.2-vendor's wife sent a 
notice to the vendee as well as to the vendor calling upon 
them to cancel the agreement as she held half share in 
the property having devolved upon her on the death of 
her son. She also stated in the notice that she was not c 
willing to sell her share and was ready to purchase the 
share of her husband-vendor. The vendee sent reply to 
her notice that the agreement was binding on her and 
notice given by her was in collusion with the vendor. His 
correspondence with the vendor failed and he filed the 
0 
suit for specific performance of the agreement against the 
vendor and his wife. He prayed for a direction to them to 
execute the sale deed and in the alternative, he prayed 
for refund of the advance amount along with interest. 
The vendor and his wife filed separate written 
E 
statements. The vendor admitted execution of agreement 
and receipt of advance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The 
vendor further averred that he had one son, who had half 
share in the property; the son died intestate and after his 
death, his half share devolved upon his wife and, thus 
F 
vendodr did not have absolute title to the property and, 
therefore, was unable to execute the sale deed. The trial 
court decreed the suit with a direction to the vendor and 
his wife to execute registered sale deed as per the terms 
of the sale agreement. Aggrieved, the vendor's wife filed 
G 
appeal before the High Court. The High Court recorded 
the findings that the property was ancestral property in 
which the deceased son had half share on whose death 
that share devolved upon the vendor's wife; the vendee 
H 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A could not be said to have any knowledge that the 
vendor's wifo had half share and in the absence of any 
express authority from his wife, the vendor could not 
alienate or otherwise dispose of her share in the property. 
The High Court finally held that the agreement of sale 
B although covered the entire property but as the vendor 
had only half share and interest in the property, the decree 
for specific performance could only be granted to the 
extent of the vendor's share in the property. The instant 
appeals were filed 

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