Joint family property plea cannot defeat specific performance where separate possession and ascertainable shares are shown.

A plea that a suit property belonged to a joint family did not, by itself, bar specific performance where the evidence showed separate possession and ascertainable shares. The SC distinguished a Mitakshara coparcenary from a broader joint family arrangement and found no strict undivided coparcenary on the record. Because the parties' admissions and conduct supported a presumption of partition, the agreement to sell remained enforceable. The Court further held that the equitable discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 did not justify refusing relief in these circumstances, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether specific performance of the agreement to sell should be refused on the ground that the suit property was joint family property and whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to deny relief.

Analysis: A distinction was drawn between a Mitakshara coparcenary and a joint family arrangement. The material on record did not establish that the parties were members of an undivided coparcenary in the strict legal sense. The evidence, including the appellant's own admissions and the conduct of the parties, indicated separate possession and a division of interests sufficient to show that the property was not being held as an indivisible coparcenary asset. In such circumstances, the agreement could not be defeated merely by asserting joint family character. The court also held that, for the purpose of enforcing the agreement, a presumption of partition could be drawn from the admitted separate possession and ascertainable shares, and that the equitable discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 did not justify refusal of relief.

Conclusion: The objection based on joint family property failed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed to show any legal ground to deny enforcement of the agreement, and the discretionary relief of specific performance remained available to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows separate possession and ascertainable shares, a plea of joint family property does not by itself bar specific performance, and the court may grant relief in the exercise of equitable discretion.

---