https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308865 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. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:28:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308865 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308865