Family dwelling house protection limits outsider transferee rights; recorded factual concessions and equitable discretion can defeat specific performance.

A family dwelling house belonging to an undivided family is protected against enforcement by an outsider transferee, and a co-sharer may invoke the Partition Act to buy out the stranger's claimed share; an agreement executed only by some co-sharers does not bind the non-consenting share. A factual concession recorded by the court is binding on the party, and a disposal recorded as consent-based is treated as a consent order, limiting later challenge. Specific performance remains a discretionary equitable remedy, and long delay, changed market conditions, and overall fairness may justify refusal. On the stated facts, the High Court's arrangement and monetary directions were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in respect of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family, a co-sharer was entitled to purchase the outsider transferee's share under the Partition Act; whether the High Court's disposal on consent and recorded concession could be challenged; and whether specific performance ought to be granted in the circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether, in respect of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family, a co-sharer was entitled to purchase the outsider transferee's share under the Partition Act.

Analysis: The property was treated as a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family. The agreement of sale was executed only by some co-sharers and did not bind the share of the non-signing co-sharer. Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 protects the family dwelling house by enabling a shareholder to buy out a transferee stranger when the transferee seeks to assert rights over the share. On the facts, the outsider could not claim the entire property, and the non-party co-sharer's share could not be conveyed by the others.

Conclusion: The co-sharer was entitled to invoke the statutory protection, and the appellant could not enforce the agreement against the non-consenting share.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's disposal on consent and recorded concession could be challenged.

Analysis: The High Court's order recorded a factual concession made through counsel on instructions from the plaintiff. A statement of fact recorded in a judgment cannot be contradicted later, and a factual concession by counsel binds the client. The Court also treated the disposal as a consent order, attracting Section 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusion: The recorded consent and factual concession were binding, and the challenge to that part of the High Court's order was not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether specific performance ought to be granted in the circumstances.

Analysis: Specific performance is a discretionary remedy under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court noted the long lapse of time, the rise in market value, and the inequity of compelling specific performance in the facts before it. The High Court's arrangement and the alternative monetary payment reflected the equities of the case.

Conclusion: Specific performance was not warranted on the facts, and the equitable relief declined by the appellant could not be granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the High Court's disposal was upheld, and the monetary directions in lieu of the disputed share were left to operate as recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee cannot enforce an agreement against the protected share of a co-sharer in a family dwelling house, and a factual concession recorded by the court binds the party so long as it is not a question of law.

---