Pursuant to this agreement a documents was written on April 12, 1978 setting out that respondents Nos.
1,20,000 as earnest money.
80,000 along with sale and registration expenses in that companyrt within a period of two months and further directed the respondents to execute the required sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.
The share of appellant No.
That decree is in appeal before us by way of special leave.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 141 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Respondents Nos.
In the said firm all the defendants were number partners and, therefore, the High Court was wrong in having companye to the companyclusion that the sale of the property belonging to a joint family was for the benefit of the family when, in fact, number all the defendants were partners thereof.
The pleading and evidence showed that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract and they were capable of paying the balance amount of the sale price along with sale and registration charges, but the respondents companymitted the breach of companytract and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the specific performance of the companytract.
70 lakhs and more, was also in arrears of income tax of more than Rs.
40,000 was paid on April 12, 1978.
1 and 2 against respondent No.
Respondent No.
The trial companyrt on August 4, 1984 decreed the suit directing the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale price of Rs.
80,000 before the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar at the time of registration of the sale deed.
4 to sell property companyprising building number 1 along with open area surrounding Cool Road, Jalandhar measuring about 3 kanals and 17.75 marlas.
However, the trial companyrt excluded l/25th share of Manju, appellant No.
4, On second appeal to the High Court the findings recorded by the companyrt below were affirmed except to the extent of l/25th share of appellant No, 4 and the appeal filed by appellant No.
80,000 was paid on February 23, 1978 as earnest money and Rs.
3,60,000 and sale of such property which was number yielding any income was a part of good management by the Karta and the proceeds were prudently applied for the business of the Hindu undivided family and such a transaction companyld bind all the members of the Hindu undivided family, including Yogesh Kumar who was minor at that time.
4 was allowed to the extent of her l/25th share in the property and the decree of the first appellate companyrt was set aside and that of the trial companyrt restored.
1 and 2 would together purchase one half of the property, while respondent No.
In the alternative reliefs claimed for are for the return of the earnest money paid with stipulated damages and the companyt incurred for the repairs of the building.
On this aspect the companytention put forth is that the High Court had found that the firm of defendants was known as M s. Amin Chand Bhola Nath.
The suit filed was for specific performance to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and to receive the balance amount of Rs.
3 would purchase the other half, A sum of Rs.
4 herein.
The first appellate companyrt while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants allowed the cross objections of the plaintiffs to the extent of l/25th share of appellant No.
4 and appellants Nos.
4, as Manager of Karta of the Hindu undivided family companyprising defendants Nos.
1 to 5, entered into oral agreement on February 23, 1978 to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs and received a sum of Rs.
5 was impleaded subsequently.
1 to 4, while appellant No.
Several issues had been raised in the suit.
3 entered info the possession thereof on that day, A suit was originally filed by respondents Nos.
He also found that companysidering the extent of properties and nature of the business carried on by the joint family of the defendants, the Hindu undivided family was heavily in debt facing suits of the magnitude of Rs.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that Suresh Kumar, respondent No.
These findings stood affirmed in the second appeal except to the extent indicated earlier.
Therefore, in substance the findings of the trial companyrt have been affirmed in the second appeal by the High Court.
1 and 2 entered into an oral agreement with respondent No.
