In Brief
A doctor purchased part of a house from a farmer under an agreement to sell in 1984. The farmer later denied the transaction, claiming it was a loan, and refused to execute the sale deed. The doctor sued for specific performance. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit, but the High Court partly allowed the appeal, denying specific performance. The Supreme Court held that since the property was jointly owned by the farmer, his wife, and three sons (as admitted in the plaint), those co-owners were necessary parties. Their absence made the suit unmaintainable. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's direction to refund Rs. 30,000 with interest.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.