Brief Facts:

1. Subject Matter:
   The case revolved around a shop measuring 11.15 square meters located in Field Survey No. 65, village Satkagbad. An agreement of sale was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, later signed by defendant No.2, the mother of defendant No.1.

2. Defendant's Defense:
   The defendants claimed only part of the shop (up to the roof) was agreed to be sold, and that they retained ownership above the roof up to the sky. Additionally, they argued that the property was ancestral, and the defendant's sisters, as co-heirs, were not parties to the sale.

3. Trial Court's Judgment:
   The Trial Court held the contract as valid but dismissed the suit for specific performance, ordering a refund of the earnest amount because defendant No.1 was not the sole owner.

4. First Appellate Court's Judgment:
   The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and decreed specific performance. The defendants failed to establish the involvement of co-owners (sisters) and the ancestral nature of the property.

Substantial Question of Law:

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in decreeing specific performance without recording a finding that defendant No.1 was the sole owner of the property, as noted by the Trial Court.

Arguments:

1. Appellant’s Argument:
   The appellants argued that since the property was ancestral, and defendant No.1 had three sisters who were not parties to the sale, the contract was illegal and unenforceable. They relied on the case of Pemmada Prabhakar vs. Youngmen's Vysya Association, where the absence of co-sharers' signatures rendered the agreement unenforceable.

2. Respondent's Argument:
   The respondent countered that the defense of non-joinder of necessary parties (sisters) was not raised in the Trial Court. They emphasized that the First Appellate Court had elaborately examined the nature of the property and that there was no substantial evidence proving the sisters’ rights in the property.

Court’s Findings:

1. Trial Court's Finding:
   The Trial Court noted that defendant No.1 could not solely execute the sale of ancestral property and that the defendant's sisters were not parties to the agreement.

2. First Appellate Court's Decision:
   The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to fulfill his part of the contract. It concluded that the defendants failed to prove any legal claim by the sisters over the property, making the decree for specific performance valid.

3. High Court's Ruling:
   The High Court ruled that the First Appellate Court was right in passing the decree for specific performance, as the defendants failed to establish their sisters' legal right over the property.

Ratio Decidendi:

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants did not produce sufficient evidence to prove that the property was ancestral or that the defendant’s sisters had a legal share in it. The court reiterated that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, and the defendants did not establish a legal barrier to its grant.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Discretionary nature of specific performance.
2. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Succession rights in ancestral property, which the defendants failed to substantiate with evidence.

Subjects:

#SpecificPerformance #AncestralProperty #HinduSuccessionAct #ContractLaw #PropertyDispute #CivilAppeal