HARDEO RAI versus SAKUNTALA DEVI AND OTHERS

HARDEO RAI versus SAKUNTALA DEVI AND OTHERS

There was no evidence to show joint possession; appellant admitted to separate possession; property was partitioned; suit for specific performance rightly decreed as appellant's co-sharers did not object for many years and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 discretionary jurisdiction properly exercised.

Parties
Appellant: Hardeo Rai; Respondents: Sakuntala Devi and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Joint Family Property, Mitakshara Coparcenary, Partition, Sale Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardeo Rai

Appellant

Sakuntala Devi and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court

  1. 1 Whether the property subject of the agreement was joint family property or partitioned and in separate possession
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was compelled to sign the agreement under duress
  3. 3 Whether specific performance of the agreement for sale can be granted under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence to show joint possession; appellant admitted to separate possession; property was partitioned; suit for specific performance rightly decreed as appellant's co-sharers did not object for many years and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 discretionary jurisdiction properly exercised.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-