Balmukand v. Kamlawati & Ors (1964)
Quick Summary
The buyer sued to force a sale of joint family land agreed by the karta. The family said there was no need or benefit for the sale. All courts, including the Supreme Court, refused specific performance. Reason: the court’s discretion applies, and where a party cannot perform the whole contract, or money cannot fix the gap, specific performance is not granted.
Issues
- Were the trial court and High Court right in dismissing the suit for specific performance?
- Could the agreement by the karta bind the joint family in the absence of legal necessity or benefit?
Rules
- If a party cannot perform a considerable part of the contract, and money cannot truly compensate, that party cannot demand specific performance.
- The court may allow partial performance at the suit of the other party, but only if that party gives up claims for the rest and for compensation.
- A karta’s sale binds the family only if there is legal necessity or clear family benefit.
Facts — Timeline
Contract: Buyer (plaintiff) agreed with the karta to buy the family’s fractional share in a large plot. Rs. 100 was paid as earnest money.
No Sale Deed: The karta did not execute the sale deed. Buyer sued for specific performance. Adult brothers of the karta were added as defendants.
Defence: Family said there was no legal necessity and the sale was not for the benefit of the family. They even disputed the contract.
Findings Below: Courts found there was a contract and earnest money paid, but the sale was not binding on the family due to no necessity/benefit.
Supreme Court: Plaintiff appealed under Art. 133. The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts and dismissed the appeal.
Arguments
Appellant (Buyer)
- Contract with karta proved; earnest money paid.
- Asked for decree of specific performance of the whole contract.
- Claimed the family should be bound by the karta’s act.
Respondents (Family)
- No legal necessity or benefit to the family.
- Contract cannot be forced against non-consenting adult members.
- Even if contract exists, court should refuse discretion for specific performance.
Judgment
Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal of specific performance.
- Granting specific performance is a matter of judicial discretion.
- Here, full performance was not possible on fair terms; money could not truly cure the deficiency.
- Without legal necessity or family benefit, the karta’s sale does not bind the family.
Ratio Decidendi
A party who cannot perform a substantial part of a contract, and where money is not an adequate substitute, cannot demand specific performance. In joint family property sales, a karta’s agreement binds others only with necessity or benefit. The court rightly used discretion to refuse the decree.
Why It Matters (Exam & Practice)
- Discretion point: Specific performance is not automatic even if a contract exists.
- Family property: Always test necessity/benefit when karta agrees to sell.
- Partial performance: Possible only if the plaintiff waives the rest and any compensation.
Key Takeaways
- Specific performance = discretion, not right.
- No necessity/benefit → karta’s sale not binding.
- Courts avoid enforcing incomplete or unfair performance.
- Partial performance requires plaintiff’s waiver.
- Earnest money alone does not prove enforceability.
- Always check scope of family share and capacity.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Need → Bind → Decree?”
- Need: Ask if there is legal necessity/benefit.
- Bind: Without it, the family is not bound.
- Decree? Specific performance is discretionary and can be refused.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Should specific performance be granted for sale of joint family share agreed by the karta?
Rule
Substantial non-performance + no adequate money remedy → no decree. Karta binds family only with necessity/benefit.
Application
Sale not shown to serve family necessity/benefit; enforcing full contract would be unfair.
Conclusion
Courts rightly refused specific performance; appeal dismissed.
Glossary
- Karta
- Manager of a Hindu joint family who may act for the family in certain transactions.
- Specific Performance
- Court order requiring a party to perform a contract instead of paying damages.
- Legal Necessity
- Need that justifies binding the whole family in a transaction, e.g., debts, maintenance.
- Partial Performance
- Court-enforced performance of the part that can be done, if the plaintiff waives the rest.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now