Specific performance of an individual co-owner’s share need not await acquisition of all co-owners’ shares.

The plaintiff entered into separate agreements to sell (ATS) with the petitioners for their respective undivided shares in a property, intending to acquire the property from all co-owners.

He alleged that he had paid substantially all, or all, of the consideration due under each ATS, but the petitioners did not complete the transactions.

In Bhupinder Singh’s case, a sale deed had been executed and presented for registration, but registration was put on hold after a competing sale deed was submitted.

The plaintiff filed suits for specific performance and injunction.

The petitioners’ applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC challenged the suits on grounds including prematurity, non-registration of the ATS, omission of consequential relief, and the bar under Section 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). The Trial Court rejected the applications, prompting these revision petitions.

Whether the suits were premature because the plaintiff had not acquired the shares of the other co-owners and the ATS made completion dependent on that acquisition.

Whether an unregistered ATS could be relied on in a suit for specific performance.

Whether the suits were liable to be rejected for failure to seek consequential relief or possession.

Whether the contracts were barred from specific enforcement under Section 14(b) SRA as requiring continuous supervision.

Whether the Trial Court’s orders disclosed a jurisdictional error warranting revision under Section 115 CPC.

Section 115 CPC confines revisional jurisdiction to cases involving illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction; it does not permit correction of factual or legal errors unless they go to the root of jurisdiction (Ambadas Khanduji Shinde v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar, (2017) 14 SCC 132; Rajeev v. Hariom Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5027).

Under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance (Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar, (2018) 7 SCC 639; R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 INSC 381).

Section 22 SRA permits a claim for possession alongside specific performance; the Court relied on Manickam alias Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2096, concerning the ancillary nature of possession relief and the proviso to Section 22(2).

Section 14(b) SRA concerns contracts involving a duty whose performance requires continuous supervision by the court.

The Court also considered Section 34 SRA in addressing the objection that no declaration or consequential relief had been sought.

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s claim against each seller could proceed independently; the ATS did not make his right to seek performance conditional on successfully acquiring every co-owner’s share.

It read Clause 3 as providing for payment of the balance after acquisition of the other shares, followed by execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession, and noted the plaintiff’s allegation that consideration had substantially been paid.

Non-registration did not bar reliance on the ATS in a specific-performance suit because the Registration Act’s proviso permits its admission as evidence of the contract.

The Court found no basis for rejection on the consequential-relief objection, noting that the suits sought specific performance and no declaration of title was claimed; it also referred to the principles governing possession relief under Section 22 SRA.

Finally, the contracts concerned transfer of already determined undivided shares and did not require continuing court supervision, unlike the reconstruction arrangement considered in Prem Kumar Bansal v. Ambrish Garg, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2549.

No material jurisdictional irregularity was shown in the Trial Court’s orders.

Both revision petitions were dismissed, and the pending applications were rendered infructuous.