https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310667 The SC upheld the District Judge's decision, allowing specific performance of the agreement to reconvey properties to the plaintiffs, despite the refusal of some joint promisees to enforce the contract. The court clarified that under Section 45 of the Contract Act, a joint promisee who does not wish to join as a co-plaintiff can be made a pro forma defendant. The refusal of some promisees does not affect the plaintiff's right to specific performance, provided the entire consideration is deposited. The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to the entire property conveyance. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2023 10:13:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310667 The SC upheld the District Judge's decision, allowing specific performance of the agreement to reconvey properties to the plaintiffs, despite the refusal of some joint promisees to enforce the contract. The court clarified that under Section 45 of the Contract Act, a joint promisee who does not wish to join as a co-plaintiff can be made a pro forma defendant. The refusal of some promisees does not affect the plaintiff's right to specific performance, provided the entire consideration is deposited. The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to the entire property conveyance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310667