JANARDAN DAS & ORS. VERSUS DURGA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS, 2024 (SC) 813
Facts: Late Surendranath Banerjee was the original owner of the suit property situated in Baripada, Odisha. Upon his demise on 03.07.1980, the property devolved equally among his five heirs: two sons—Defendant No. 1 (Binayendra Banerjee) and late Soumendra Nath Banerjee— and three daughters—Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 (Smt. Rekha Mukherjee, Smt. Sikha Das, and Smt. Monila Pal). On 14.04.1993, an oral agreement was entered into between all the co-owners (Defendant Nos. 1 to 8) and the appellants (Defendant Nos. 9 to 11), wherein the co-owners collectively agreed to sell the suit property to the appellants for a total consideration of ₹4,20,000. This agreement was the culmination of mutual discussions and a longstanding understanding between the parties, reflecting the genuine intent of all coowners to transfer the property to the appellants. Meanwhile, on 06.06.1993, the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2), who are dealers operating a petrol pump on the suit land under a dealership agreement with Defendant No. 12 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited), allegedly entered into an agreement to sell with Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra for
the purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of ₹5,70,000 paying ₹70,000 as earnest money. The agreement stipulated that the sisters (Defendant Nos. 6 to 8) would come to Baripada within three months to execute the sale deed, as they were unable to do so at the time of the agreement. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed before 30.09.1993. 2.4. It is pertinent to note that the agreement dated 06.06.1993 was executed solely by Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra, without any signatures, written consent, or explicit authorization from Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, who collectively held a significant 3/5th share in the property. The plaintiffs were aware that without the participation and consent of the sisters, a valid and enforceable sale could not be completed.
The trial court held against the plaintiff, however, the High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed specific performance of agreement to sell. Following this, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue: In the Agreement To Sell Property Under Joint Ownership, On Whom does the Onus lie?
Observation: The Court observed that the plaintiff's failure to contact the sisters, who are co-owners of a 3/5th share in the suit property, would not absolve him from his commitment to perform the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Supreme Court observed that when the plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell a property (being jointly owned by multiple persons), then the onus is on the plaintiff to ensure that all necessary consents and participations are secured to prove his readiness and willingness towards the performance of the contract. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded.
