SILLA CHANDRA SEKHARAM Vs. RAMCHANDN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, raises the question of the correct interpretation of S. 18(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Act 1 of 1877), hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) Ramchandra, respondent, executed an agreement to sell the house in suit to the appellant, on February 21, 1951. The agreement stated that he was in sole possession and enjoyment of the house which was his paternal property, that he was the Managing Member and Karta of the family and that for meeting family necessities and discharging certain loans he agreed to sell his undisputed house for Rs. 6,000/- on condition that he and his mother would execute a deed of sale in favour of the appellant with respect to the house within a period of one year from the date of the execution of the deed of agreement. Ramchandra did not execute the sale deed and the appellant instituted the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(3.) The trial Court held that the sale was not to be for legal necessity and therefore decreed the suit in part, on the appellant's depositing a sum of Rs. 6,000/- less the sum of Rs. 300/ paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell and less the amount of costs granted to the appellant against Ramchandra within a month and directed that defendant No. 1 would execute the sale deed for the alienation of his interest in the entire house as covered by the agreement and that the plaintiff would be entitled to get possession of the same jointly with defendant No. 2 mother of Ramchandra.