AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 145
(From: (2000)3 Ker. L. T. 330)
C. A. No. 1984 of 2002,
D. 7-10-2005.
P. C. Varghese v. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi and others.
📌Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963). Se. 12(3), 20- “Unable to perform the whole contract Agreement to sell prop- Everywhere stating that in event per mission to sell minor’s share was not obtained within period specified therein, same shall become invalid or otherwise unenforceable in law Application for grant of permission to sell minor’s share rejected only during pendency of sult Contract thus not contingent contract – Vendors having definite share in property excluding minor’s share-It was not composite contract-Decree for specific performance of contract regarding vendors excluding share of minor can be passed – More, when purchaser relinquished his claim in respect of property belong- ing to minor by way of amendment.
📌Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. Alternative plea For refund of earnest amount and damage Cannot itself be bar to claim decree for specific performance of contract.
📌Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 22(1)(a)-Decree for partition and separate possession of property Can be granted in addition to decree for specific performance of contract.
📌Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 1, R. 9- Proper party Appeal Suit for specific performance and partition partition attaining finality Decree for Decree for specific performance passed by trial Court only as regards separate shares of some of defendants No decree for specific performance passed against some of defendants i.e. as regards undivided share of minor in property and his guardian Such defendants however, bound by decree passed by trial Court Appeal Minor defendant and his guardian are proper parties though not necessary parties.