Son Given Rs 5,000 In Family Partition Had No Title To Sell; Madras HC Orders 3-Acre Sale To Agreement Buyers

The appellants agreed on 7 November 2007 to purchase three acres of agricultural land from the first and second respondents for ₹9,08,000 per acre.

They paid ₹3,00,000 on execution and a further ₹50,000 by endorsement.

The vendors’ title arose from a settlement and a partition under which the first and second respondents received the land, while the fourth respondent received ₹5,000 and no land.

The appellants sought specific performance, asserting readiness and willingness; the vendors admitted the agreement but disputed that the appellants were ready and willing to complete the sale.

The trial court dismissed the suit on that ground, including for want of proof of means.

On appeal, the High Court framed an additional issue on readiness and willingness and directed the trial court to record evidence under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC.

The fourth respondent had meanwhile conveyed the property, and the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as the sixth respondent.

The Court applied Section 96 CPC in hearing the first appeal and Order XLI Rules 25 and 30 CPC in obtaining additional evidence and determining the appellate points.

It referred to Order XIV CPC, under which issues are to be framed on material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other.

The Court applied the principles governing specific performance: a valid and binding sale agreement may be enforced where the parties are required to perform their respective obligations, including the purchaser’s obligation to pay the balance and the vendors’ obligation to execute the sale deed.

It also applied the rule that a person without title cannot convey title to a subsequent purchaser.

The agreement, the consideration, and both advance payments were undisputed; the Court therefore found the agreement valid and binding.

It rejected the trial court’s inference that the appellants’ request for a cart track showed unwillingness, observing that access was reasonably necessary for agricultural land and that discussions about surveying and demarcating the land supported an intention to complete the transaction.

The trial court’s finding that the appellants lacked the means to pay was unsupported by evidence, and no readiness-and-willingness issue had initially been framed; the additional evidence also confirmed that the balance consideration had been deposited in court.

As the partition deed allotted no land to the fourth respondent and had not been set aside, he had no title to convey; the subsequent purchaser therefore acquired no title through him.

It held the agreement enforceable and the fourth respondent’s conveyance to the sixth respondent void and non-est.

The second, fifth and sixth respondents were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants within three months; the second and fifth respondents may withdraw the deposited sale consideration with interest upon execution.