FACTS- It was stated that Munichannarayappa had entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.02.1987 and received an amount of Rs.23,500 as kartha of the joint family and he had borrowed a loan from PLD Bank, Devanahalli for raising wine yard and it was overdue until February 1987. It was submitted that Munichannarayappa's younger brother Venkatesha had left the village long ago and his whereabouts were not known.In order to repay the loan, Munichannarayappa offered to sell the suit properties and received the entire sale consideration and executed an agreement for sale on 19.02.1987. On the same day, Munichannarayappa delivered the possession of the suit properties and agreed to execute the sale deed whenever called upon to do so, it was stated.Munichannarayappa's younger brother Venkatesha came to the village in the year 1995 and having come to know about the sale agreement, created a sale deed dated 22.05.1995 in favour of C. Kempanna. Subsequent to which the plaintiff filed the suit, it was submitted.

It was stated that possession was delivered as on the date of the agreement, Section 53A was brought in to favour the plaintiff and possession was also proved, which was considered by the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court.The order of the trial court and the first appellate court allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff was challenged.

ISSUE-Whether Specific Relief Can Be Granted If 'Karta' Enters Agreement Without Joint Owners For Benefit Of Joint Family, To Clear Loan Availed By Them?

OBSERVATION-The Karnataka High Court has held that relief of specific performance can be granted against a defendant who is the Karta of the family when the other members of the joint family are not included in the sale agreement if the sale consideration is used for benefit of the joint family and for clearing the loan availed by joint owners.The bench noted that as per Section 34 of the Act, it is clear that discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles and the Court has to take note of the nature of obligations in respect of which performance is sought.

It was concluded that “In order to clear the loan only the transaction took place and by entering into the agreement of sale, received the entire sale consideration and the possession was delivered and the same is for the benefit of the family. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below committed an error cannot be accepted”. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.