I NAGIAH Vs. AVENKATARAMA SASTRULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Lower Courts refusing specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by the first defendant. The suit is brought against the first defendant who is the managing member of the family and against defendants Nos. 2 to 4, his major sons, and defendants Nos. 5 to 8, his minor sons, who appear by their guardian the first defendant. The Lower Courts have both found that this contract is not binding on defendants Nos. 2 to 8, and the question which we have to decide is whether specific performance should in these circumstances be granted or not.

(2.) We have been referred to a decision in Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam (1903) I.L.R. 26 Mad. 74 in which it was decided without specific reference to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act that the proper course in such cases as this would be to give a decree for specific performance of the whole contract against the first defendant leaving it to be settled in future litigation what passed under the conveyance.

(3.) Another case to which we have been referred is Srinivasa Reddi v. Sivarama Reddi (1909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 320 in which similarly a decree was granted directing the first defendant to sell the whole land without determining whether such a sale would bind the second defendant. In that case the provisions of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act were referred to and it was observed that "Section 15" of the Specific Relief Act "would be applicable only if the first defendant had no interest in any portion of the property agreed to be conveyed as in illustration (a) or is unable to convey such portion as in illustration (b) to that section."