The learned Trial Judge in view of the rival companytentions of the parties framed as many as seven issues.
The Appellant filed the suit against the Respondent Nos.
The plaintiff is allowed to get the document executed for 19 cents of property as scheduled in the plaint as stated above through companyrt and plaintiff is also entitled to get delivery of that property from the defendant in execution of this decree.
It was further companytended that the purpose for agreeing to sell the property was for meeting the marriage expenses of the Third Respondent but ad Respondent Nos1 and 5 were able to meet the expenses therefor without selling the property, the very purpose thereof became futile.
The defendants 1 to 3 are directed to execute the sale deed for their 3/4th share in 15 cents plus 4 cents when they will be allotted their shares in the final decree on receiving the sale companysideration minus the value of the share of the minor 4th defendant which was ascertained in the Final Decree Proceedings within two months from the date of passing the Final Decree.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 agreed to sell the said property to the Appellant herein, wherefor an agreement of sale was executed on 13.09.1980 in his favour.
The Appellant thereafter filed an application for amendment of plaint praying for substitution of prayer C. The application for amendment was allowed and amended prayer C reads as under C If for any reason this Honble Court finds prayers A B cannot be allowed as such, the plaintiff may be allowed to take a sale deed of the share of defendants 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule property, through companyrt, in the name of his wife and children as mentioned above.
It is, however, number in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the application filed for obtaining permission for sale of minors share was dismissed.
The Appellant deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ in his name and in the names of his wife and children in fixed deposit No.28517 57 81 dated 03.08.1981 in the Federal Bank Limited.
The balance 4 cents absolutely belonged to the First Respondent on the death of one Narayana Pillai and Devaki Amma.
4 and 5 were number parties to the appeal before the High Court, they were number impleaded as parties subsequently an application for impleading them was filed.
The agreement companytained a companydition that the Respondents would obtain requisite permission from the appropriate companyrt for sale of the minors share therein.
5 and 7 read as under Is number a plaintiff entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13.09.1980 ?
The Original Defendant Nos.4 and 5 did number prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree.
In terms of the said agreement, a sum of Rs.5,05,000/ was fixed as total companysideration and a sum of Rs.10,000/ was received by the Respondents by way of advance.
In case defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute the sale deed for the property allotted to them in the final decree within two months from the date of passing final decree after paying the proportionate sale companysideration.
P2 to execute a deed of sale in relation to the shares of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein i.e. excluding the share of the minor, stating Even number I stick on to this suggestion and am prepared to purchase the remaining portion of the property minus the minors share and is prepared to purchase the minors share also after obtaining the permission from companyrt.
Issue Nos.
However, an extension thereof had been granted.
1 to 5 herein, inter alia, for a decree of specific performance of companytract in respect of the said agreement of sale in respect of the entire 19 cents.
And for that purpose pass a preliminary decree to divide the aforesaid 15 cents in the schedule property separating the 3/4th share of the defendants 1 to 3 from the 1/4th share of the minor 4th defendant by metes and bounds and allowing plaintiff to recover possession of the four cents belonging to the first defendant and 3/4th share of defendants 1 to 3 in the 15 cents on payment by the plaintiff of the companysideration agreed in the agreement for sale less the proportionate value of his minors share.
The plaintiff is allowed to apply for passing a Final Decree for effecting the partition of 3/4th share in the 15 cents of property.
The said agreement was entered into by the Respondent Nos.
The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein only preferred an appeal.
The plaintiff is directed to deposit the sale companysideration as per the terms of the companytract deducting the proportionate value of the minors share within two months from the date of the final decree.
We fail to understand as to how the agreement for sale can be said to be a companytingent companytract, as was submitted by Mr. Reddy.
The Appellant herein number only in the suit but also even prior thereto asked the Respondents herein by a numberice dated 23.03.1981 Ex.
As Respondent Nos.
secure the amount of companysideration payable to the minor in terms of the guardian and ward certificate which was to be obtained on application filed by Respondent No.5 receive the balance companysideration and on the date specified by the Appellant, appear before the Sub Registrar and register the deed of sale.
The Trial Court number only granted a decree for specific performance of companytract but also a preliminary decree for partition.
A letter was also sent to the Fifth Respondent requesting him to get the sale deed executed at least with regard to the shares of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on receipt of proportionate amount of companysideration and to execute the sale deed relating to the minors share after such permission was obtained.
In the circumstances of the case both parties are directed to suffer their respective companyts.
He also made an alternative prayer, as per para 23C praying that if specific performance companyld number be granted in regard to entire extent, he may be allowed to take a sale deed in respect of the share of Defendants 1 to 3 and may be allowed to recover possession of that much property from defendants through companyrt.
Such permission was to be obtained within a period of three months which was also the period fixed for performance of the terms of the agreement.
The Appellant made several requests to the Respondents to perform their part of companytract.
The Respondents, however, did number perform their part of companytract.
The Respondents in their written statement raised a companytention that the Civil Court having refused to grant permission to sell the minors share, performance on their part became impossible.
As Respondent No.4 was born subsequent to the execution of the said deed of partition, she became entitled to a one fourth share in 15 cents which companyes to 3.75 cents.
15 cents out of the land in question measuring 19 cents were obtained by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by reason of a partition under deed No.1598 of 1973.
Whether the Specific Performance of the part of the agreement is allowable ?
He also served a registered numberice through his advocate asking the Respondents to execute the sale deed, in respect whereto a reply was sent by the Respondents stating that the sale deed can be executed only after obtaining the permission from the Court.
The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein holding that the companytract being an integrated one, the companyditions mentioned therein as regard obtaining the necessary permission from the Civil Court relating to minors share was an essential term for execution of the companytract and since such permission had number been granted, the entire companytract failed.
The Appellant is, thus, before us.
It was further stipulated that in the event, the Respondents failed to register the sale deed in terms of the said agreement, the Appellant would be entitled to deposit in the companyrt the balance companysideration after adjusting the amount of advance file a suit and obtain a decree for specific performance.
However, an application has been filed by the said added Respondents companytending that they have unnecessarily been impleaded as parties.
1 to 3 on their own behalf and by Respondent No.5 as the guardian of the minor Respondent No.
In any event, the learned companynsel would companytend, the discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act should number granted in favour of the Appellant herein.
Respondent Nos.
The Fourth Respondent was their minor daughter.
The suit filed by the Appellant herein was decreed by the Trial Judge in the following terms In the result, a preliminary decree for partition is passed on the following terms The 3/4th share of the property of the defendants 1 to 3 shall be partitioned from the 15 cents of property which belongs to defendants 1 to 4 as also the 4 cents absolutely belongs to the first defendant.
According to him, the Respondents had deliberately been delaying the disposal of the application for obtaining the aforementioned permission.
A cross appeal was also filed by the Plaintiff Appellant.
The plaintiff is also allowed to apply for issue of a Commission to effect partition of share of defendants 1 to 3 in 15 cents of property and to ascertain the value of 1/4th share of the minor 4th defendant in the 15 cents of property.
As numbericed hereinbefore, a decree as against him has attained finality as she did number preferred any appeal thereagainst.
B. SINHA, J The First Respondent herein is the wife of K.R. Narayana Pillai Respondent No.5 .
2 and 3 are daughters of the First and the Fifth Respondent herein.
