Appeal Dismissed: Court Affirms Specific Performance Only for Respondent's Share Due to Lack of Authority Over Entire Property. The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal for specific performance of an agreement to sell 1/3rd share of the suit property. The court ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal Dismissed: Court Affirms Specific Performance Only for Respondent's Share Due to Lack of Authority Over Entire Property.
The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal for specific performance of an agreement to sell 1/3rd share of the suit property. The court upheld the lower appellate court's decree, which granted specific performance for the respondent's share only, as the respondent lacked authority to sell the 2/3rd share belonging to his sisters. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, and the appellate court found no substantial question of law, affirming that the respondent could not alienate property not exclusively in his name in the revenue records.
Issues Involved: Plaintiff's second appeal challenging judgment and decree for specific performance of agreement to sell u/s 19.6.1992 for 1/3rd share of respondent in suit property.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1: Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell - Plaintiff sought decree for possession of suit land through specific performance of contract of sale u/s 19.6.1992. - Respondent contested suit, raising objections including bar of limitation, absence of locus standi, and unlawful nature of agreement. - Respondent claimed ownership along with two sisters, denying being sole legal heir of father Chandgi Ram. - Trial court initially dismissed the suit. - Lower Appellate Court decreed suit for specific performance of 1/3rd share, as respondent sold entire share of father, not sisters. - Plaintiff appealed for total specific performance, arguing respondent's representation as sole owner precludes wriggling out of promise. - Court found respondent lacked authority to sell sisters' share, as property not exclusively in his name in revenue records. - Respondent had no title to 2/3rd share, hence not competent to alienate it. - Appeal dismissed, no substantial question of law found.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the issues involved and the comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
