Supreme Court: Whether one plaintiff is entitled to get decree in suit for specific performance of contract if co-plaintiff is not willing to get specific performance?

 ON QUESTION - (f)

19. Now, the question is whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance. In his deposition, the first Plaintiff has proved the service of notice of demand to the first Defendant. The suit is filed within limitation, and the Defendants did not raise a plea of delay and laches. There are concurrent findings of the three Courts on the issue of the readiness and willingness shown by the first Plaintiff. There is no reason to disturb the said findings. Now, the question is, what is the effect of the failure of the second Plaintiff to support the first Plaintiff and his conduct of supporting the Defendants? In the facts of the case, the answer lies in the submissions made by the second to fourth Defendants before the High Court. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the High Court has recorded the following submissions made by the counsel for the second to fourth Defendants:

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Plaintiff No. 2 Murari Singh did not file the suit nor had signed the vakalatnama and that the said Plaintiff had admitted this fact in his deposition, consequently, the suit was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the percentage of share between the Plaintiffs were not defined in the agreement to sell and, consequently, Under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Plaintiffs would be deemed to have equal shares, namely, 50 percent. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants contended that since Murari Singh did not institute the suit, the decree for specific performance for the whole land, which was undivided could not have been decreed by the trial court and, consequently, to that extent, the decree passed by the trial court was erroneous. ...............................................................

(emphasis added)

20. In our view, as the second Plaintiff was not interested in getting the specific performance, the decree ought to have been restricted to the undivided one-half share in the suit property in favour of only the first Plaintiff.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6782 of 2013

Decided On: 09.07.2024

Maharaj Singh and Ors. Vs. Karan Singh (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0587/2024,2024 INSC 491.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page