TILAK RAJ BAKSHI versus AVINASH CHAND SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

TILAK RAJ BAKSHI versus AVINASH CHAND SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

The appellant, having received a reasonable offer compliant with the family settlement and not having acted upon it, was estopped from objecting to sale for want of written concurrence and could not claim specific performance; the clause did not impose an absolute restraint on alienation, and the transaction was not invalid on account of statutory prohibition against fragmentation; accordingly, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Tilak Raj Bakshi; Respondent: Avinash Chand Sharma (Dead) through LRs.; Respondents: Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Appeal After Dismissal by High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Pre Emption, Family Settlement, Specific Performance, Fragmentation of Property, Partition, Restriction on Alienation, Appellate Procedure, Plea of Estoppel
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Right of Pre Emption Family Settlement Specific Performance Fragmentation of Property Partition +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tilak Raj Bakshi

Appellant

Avinash Chand Sharma (Dead) through LRs.

Respondent

Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Appeal After Dismissal by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of pre-emption or a principle analogous thereto could be enforced on the facts
  2. 2 Whether absence of written concurrence from brothers before the sale invalidated the sale
  3. 3 Whether the family settlement clause was vague or unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, having received a reasonable offer compliant with the family settlement and not having acted upon it, was estopped from objecting to sale for want of written concurrence and could not claim specific performance; the clause did not impose an absolute restraint on alienation, and the transaction was not invalid on account of statutory prohibition against fragmentation; accordingly, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs