Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original defendants 1 to 5, are members of a joint Hindu family. Respondent 1, Kiran Avachat, filed Special Civil Suit 78/2006 for specific performance of an agreement dated 30.06.2005 for sale of joint family property, allegedly entered into by defendant No.1 (Pundalik Gujarkar) as karta. The trial court (Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha) partly decreed the suit on 30.08.2010, rejecting specific performance but directing refund of earnest money of Rs.3,00,000 with 18% interest. Respondent 1 appealed, and the District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal 222/2015, reversed the trial court's judgment and decreed specific performance. Aggrieved, the original defendants 1 to 5 filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the agreement was binding on minor defendants 3 to 5, and (2) whether the appellate court could consider the plaintiff's readiness and willingness for the first time in appeal without an issue framed. The High Court held that the karta's power to alienate joint family property is limited to legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and the appellate court failed to consider this. Since the agreement was not for legal necessity or benefit, it was not binding on the minor coparceners. Further, the trial court did not frame an issue on readiness and willingness, and the appellate court could not consider it without remanding the matter. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate decree, and restored the trial court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Karta's Power of Alienation - Binding Effect on Minor Coparceners - Agreement for Sale of Joint Family Property - The karta of a joint Hindu family can alienate joint family property only for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. An agreement to sell entered into by the karta without such necessity or benefit is not binding on minor coparceners. The appellate court erred in holding that the agreement was binding on minor defendants 3 to 5 without considering the lack of legal necessity or benefit. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Issue Framing - Under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC, an issue must be framed on readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance. If no such issue is framed by the trial court, the appellate court cannot consider it for the first time in appeal without remanding the matter. The appellate court's consideration of readiness and willingness was improper. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court rightly held that the agreement dated 30.06.2005 entered into by defendant No.1 was binding on defendant Nos.3 to 5 who were minors; and whether in absence of any issue as to plaintiff's readiness and willingness having been framed by the trial court, the same could have been considered for the first time in appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal 222/2015, and restored the judgment and decree of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Special Civil Suit 78/2006.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Joint Hindu family property
- Karta's power of alienation
- Minor coparceners
- Readiness and willingness
- Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
