LexPEMMADA PRABHAKAR & ORS. versus YOUNGMENS VYSYA ASSOCIATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1064 PEMMADA PRABHAKAR & ORS. v. YOUNGMEN'S VYSYA ASSOCIATION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7835 of 2014) AUGUST 20, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Specific Relief.Act, 1963- ss. 17, 20(2) - Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title - Enforceability of - C Suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale - Entitlement for decree - When agreement of sale entered between the plaintiffs-vendee and defendant nos. 1 and 2- vendor and vendor did not have absolute title to the property, there was absence of execution of the agreement of sale by o the other defendants/co-sharers, and there was breach of terms and conditions of the contract on the part of the plaintiffs in not paying the sale consideration amount within the stipulated period - Held: In view of s. 17, the agreement of sale entered between the plaintiffs and some of the co-sharers E who do not have the absolute title to the suit schedule property is not enforceable in law - On facts, suit schedule property was self acquired property of 'P' who died intestate, surviving by his wife, three sons and three daughters upon whom the property devolved in view of s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act F being class I legal heirs in the suit schedule property - Agreement of sale was executed only by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 - 3rd son,· mother and three sisters who got equal shares in the property did not execute the agreement of sale - Thus, agreement of sale executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who had no absolute right to property cannot confer any right G whatsoever upon the plaintiffs for grant of decree of specific performance of agreement of sale in their favour - Said agreement is not enforceable in law in view of s. 17 - As assured by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that they would get H 1064 PEMMADA PRABHAKAR v. YOUNGMEN'S VYSYA 1065 ASSOCIATION the signatures of the 3rd brother at the time of execution of A the agreement, signatures were not obtained, thus, the agreement was not executed by all the co-sharers of the property- Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not approach the trial court with clean hands - Plaintiffs did not pay the sale consideration amount as agreed to be paid within the period B stipulated - Thus, the order passed by the trial coµrt dismissing the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale restored with modification that the defendants would pay a sum of Rs. 6, 00, 0001- to the plaintiffs as lump-sum compensation within the stipulated time - Order passed by c the High Court and first appellate court set aside - Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 'PVR'-owner of the suit property, died intestate. He survived by his wife and his six children, three sons and three daughters-defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The respondents- D plaintiffs filed suit for the specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendants-appellants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff No.1 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property at certain rate. The E defendant Nos.1 and 2 received advance amount and the remaining amount was to be paid to the defendants within 10 days from the day of vacating the tenants from the suit schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed that they would obtain the signatures of their 3rd brother- F the defendant No.3 as also the sisters who got married long ago. The Senior Civil Judge holding that the agreement of sale was not valid as the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and their mother did not give consent to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit for G specific performance of sale as also directed the defendants to refund the advance amount received by them. On appeal, the first appellate court held that the sale agreement is valid and binding between the parties; and directed the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 to execute H 1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 7 S.C.R. A the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's Association in respect of their 1/6th share. The defendants filed Second Appeal. Hence the instant appeal. 8 The questions which arose for consideration in the instant appeals were whether the plaintiffs were entitled for the dec'ree for specific performance of the agreement of sale when agreement of sale entered between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who did not have C absolute title to the property; w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.