TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Affirms Specific Performance for Property Reconveyance Despite Joint Promisee Refusal; Appeal Dismissed.</h1> <h3>Ponnuswami Gounder Versus. Rama Boyan and Ors</h3> The SC upheld the District Judge's decision, allowing specific performance of the agreement to reconvey properties to the plaintiffs, despite the refusal ... - Issues:1. Suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey properties.2. Maintainability of the suit when some promisees do not want to enforce the contract.Analysis:1. The case involved a suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey properties between the plaintiffs and defendants. The first defendant, who had executed the agreement, refused to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiffs tendering the consideration within the stipulated time. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, citing precedent, but the District Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing specific performance of the entire contract. The first defendant appealed this decision.2. The central legal question in the appeal was whether a suit for specific performance could be maintained by some promisees when others do not wish to enforce the contract. Section 45 of the Contract Act was invoked, but the Supreme Court clarified that a joint promisee who does not want to join as a co-plaintiff can be made a pro forma defendant. The Privy Council also affirmed that joint promisees can file a suit even if some refuse to join. The judgment highlighted that the refusal of some promisees does not jeopardize the right of the plaintiff seeking specific performance. The court emphasized that the plaintiff, upon depositing the entire consideration, is entitled to the conveyance of the entire property, regardless of the refusal of other promisees.3. The court referenced prior judgments that supported the stance that one joint promisee can file a suit and include unwilling promisees as defendants. It was emphasized that the rights between the parties should be determined based on the agreements between them, and a defendant cannot claim to execute the conveyance only for a portion of the properties. The judgment concluded that the lower appellate court's decision was correct, dismissing the second appeal with no costs. The ruling affirmed the entitlement of the plaintiff to specific performance of the entire contract, irrespective of the refusal of other promisees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
