Vijay A. Mittal & Ors. vs. Kulwant Rai (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. – (SC)

Specific Relief Act, 1963–Sec. 12–Suit for specific performance of sale agreement–View of trial Court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part but dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendant was not competent to sell the property–First appellate Court decreed the suit with the view that the original defendant executed the subsequent sale deed by collusion so as to deprive the plaintiffs of the fruits of their agreement–Further observation that he was the Karta of HUF and agreement was binding over all coparceners–Second appeal was dismissed by High Court–Findings
on the issue of readiness and willingness, recorded by three Courts below are binding over this Court–No evidence was led by defence that their agreement was prior in point of time as against the agreement of plaintiff–One of a son of the original defendant “A” signed the agreement in question and his all LRs. were aware of the agreement–Furthermore, the subsequent sale of property by “A” was not challenged by his legal heirs–Therefore, it is sufficient to draw the presumption that the agreement in favour of the plaintiff was executed with their consent–Held, no case is made out for interfering in impugned findings.