https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387611 Specific performance could extend only to the vendor's undivided half share where the agreement to sell was executed through a power of attorney holder and the plaintiffs knew the property had devolved in equal shares. On those facts, no estoppel arose because the plaintiffs were not misled into believing that the entire property belonged exclusively to the vendor. The decree was therefore confined to the deceased vendor's 50% share, while defendant No.1's separate share was excluded. The concurrent findings on execution, consideration, and limitation were left undisturbed, but the decree was modified to reflect the true extent of title. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Oct 2019 07:56:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387611 Specific performance could extend only to the vendor's undivided half share where the agreement to sell was executed through a power of attorney holder and the plaintiffs knew the property had devolved in equal shares. On those facts, no estoppel arose because the plaintiffs were not misled into believing that the entire property belonged exclusively to the vendor. The decree was therefore confined to the deceased vendor's 50% share, while defendant No.1's separate share was excluded. The concurrent findings on execution, consideration, and limitation were left undisturbed, but the decree was modified to reflect the true extent of title. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387611