Holding

The sale agreement is enforceable and specific performance is granted to the extent of defendants 1‑6’s share; all appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Syscon Consultants entered into a 1985 agreement to purchase a coastal island in Goa from defendants 1‑6, who misrepresented themselves as sole owners and concealed a mortgage and a sister's pre‑emptive rights. The plaintiff paid an advance and later discharged the mortgage by paying Rs 17 lakh, but the defendants failed to complete the sale and sought to frustrate the contract. The sister and her husband obtained the property in inventory proceedings and sold it to defendant 9, who bought it knowing of the litigation. The plaintiff sued for specific performance; the High Court granted it to the extent of defendants 1‑6’s share. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the agreement was enforceable, specific performance was appropriate because the plaintiff was ready to perform, monetary compensation was inadequate, the mortgage had been cleared, and Portuguese law permits alienation of undivided interests. The Court dismissed all appeals, refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136.

Issues considered

Whether the agreement of sale is enforceable despite joint ownership and pending inventory proceedings
Whether specific performance is an appropriate remedy where the plaintiff has cleared the mortgage and is ready to perform
Whether monetary compensation is an adequate alternative to specific performance for the island property
Whether Article 2177 of the Portuguese Civil Code bars alienation of an undivided share
Whether defendants 7 and 8 lost their pre‑emptive rights under Portuguese law
Whether the purchaser (defendant 9) can claim any relief despite buying the property in litigation
Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution

Legislation cited

Subjects

specific performancesale agreementmortgage redemptionundivided sharepre‑emptive rightPortuguese Civil CodeArticle 136equitable reliefjoint ownershipisland propertyTransfer of Property Act

Judgment

[2016) 6 S.C.R. 456

A SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD.
v.
M/S. PRIMELLA SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2910 of2013)
B SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Specific Performance - Sale agreement - By defendant Nos.
1 to 6 with the plaintiff - Claiming to be absolute owners of the
property in question and concealing the fact that the property was
c mortgaged with Bank and there was another heir (their sister) -
However, the defendants 1 to 6 had agreed to give clear title to the
plaintiff - Advance paid by the plaintiff - Thereafter defendants 1
to 6 communicated to the plaintiff their inability to sell the property
as their sister claimed pre-emptive rights - Plaint(ff filed suit (suit
D No. 8811987) for specific performance of the contract - The sister
and her husband also filed suit for declaration and injunction (Suit
No. 10511987) in respect of suit property as well as other properties,
against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and the plaintiff - In recovery
proceedings by the mortgagee Bank, the distress sale of the suit
property was averted on plaintiff repaying the loan amount on the
E
request of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 - Mortgage was redeemed - The
sister initiated inventory proceedings for division of the property
including suit property - Jn the inventory proceeding the court was
not informed about the pending suit, nor the plaintiff was informed
about the same - In the inventory proceedings sister and her husband
F obtained suit property - Writ petition by the sister challenging the
proceedings of the Asstt. Registrar culminating in redemption of
mortgage - Petition disposed of by High Court giving liberty to
pursue their rights as per law - Plaintiff thereafter amended the
suit (8811987) impleading sister and her husband as additional
defendants (as defendant Nos. 7 and 8), also challenging inventory
G
proceedings and sought compensation - Defendant Nos. 7 and 8
sold their property to defendant No. 9 - Trial court dismissed the
suit of plaintiff and upheld the rights of defendant Nos. 7 and 8 -
High Court decreed the suit to the extent of the share of defendant
Nos. 1 to 6 - Appeal by the plaintiff, by the defendant Nos. 1 to 8
H
456
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRIMELLA 457
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS

and also by the purchaser of the property i.e. defendant No. 9 - A
Held: In view of the conduct of the parties, it is not a fit case to
exercise discretionwy jurisdiction u/Art. 136 of Constitution - The
plaintiff had throughout .been readft;and willing to perform its
obligations under the agreement to sell - In view of the nature of
the property, monetary compensation would not be an adequate
B
alternative to specific performance - The plaintiff went to the extent
of discharging the mortgage by paying a sum which was almost
three times the amount of sale consideration - Defendant Nos. I to
8 had already given up on their rights in the suit property by not
taking steps to avoid the distress sale at the instance of the Bank -
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 also failed to ·complete the sale even after c
clear title was made out, i.e. when the obstacle of mortgage was
removed - The agreement became enforceable after clear title was
made out - Even if undivided share of one of the other heirs of the
property cannot be transferred, the remaining share of other heirs
can be transferred - Art. 2177 of Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
D
does not prohibit alienation of undivided interest - No injustice is
caused to defendant No. 9 eithe1~ as he purchased the property
under litigation being fully aware of the same - Portuguese Civil
Code, I867 -Art. 2177 - Constitution of India -Art. 136.
Dismissing tbe appeals, the Court
E
HELD: l. The suit property, no doubt is jointly owned by
Defendants 1 to 8. But the agreement for sale was only by the
Defendants 1 to 6. They not only excluded the sister and her
husband but made two deliberate and wrong representations: that
Defendants 1, 3 and 5 are the only children and that the suit
property was the only estate left by their parents. [Para 40) [477- F
B-C) '·
2. Fully conscious of the fact that there was another heir
namely the sister and that the property had already been
mortgaged to the Cooperative Bank, a very significant clause
was incorporated in the agreement to the effect that the vendors G
could execute a proper conveyance in favour of the purchasers
and in that regard, the vendors would make any other person or
persons to join them so as to convey an absolute title to the
purchaser or to redeem any charge or encumbrance. This clause
clearly shows that the Defendants 1 to 6, had still genuinely H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A intended to execute the sale covering both the eventualities
namely, joining the sister and her husband and redeeming the
mortgage. [Para 40) [477-D-E]
3. At one stage, Defendants 1 to 8 apparently were sailing
together, faced with the distress sale of the suit property by the
B bank. It was in that context that the Defendants l to 6 made a
request to the Plaintiff (by letter dated 14.11.91 Exbt PW l/F)
that in case the Plaintiff cleared the loan liability, they would get
in the sister also for the conveyance of the property and settle
the whole dispute. Thereafter, Defendants 1 to 6 left the Plaintiff
and consequently wanted the agreement to get frustrated. [Para
c 41) [477-F-G; 478-D]
4. As far as Defendants 7 and 8 are concerned, they not
only went back on their undertaking in Court to pay the dues to
the bank so as to avert the auction sale, they have not pursued
their claim if any, to the title to the property as per the liberty
D granted to them by judgment dated 10'" October, 1994 of the
High Court in Writ Petition No. 277 of 1994. The High Court
apparently was clear in its mind, that if at all, Defendants 7 and 8
, wanted to save the situation by exercising their right to pre-
emption under the Portuguese Laws, they could still do that within
E six months. Yet, nothing was done. In any case, more than six
months after the judgment dated 10.10.1994, they sold the suit
property on 14.11.1995 when as a matter of fact, Defendants 1 to
8 had by their conduct forfeited all rights and interests in respect
of the suit property. Thus, there is no question of right of pre-
emption available to Defendants 7 and 8. [Para 42) [478-D-F)
F
5. The Defendants 7 and 8 chose, with the assent of
Defendants 1 to 6 in the inventory proceedings, the suit property,
fully knowing that the property was disputed. Normally, one would
avoid a disputed property or leave a disputed property to the
authors of the dispute, i.e., the brothers in this case. None of the
G Defendants 1-8 told the District Judge in the inventory
proceedings that the property was already in dispute, and that
two civil suits were pending in which case the District Judge
would have certainly taken note of the litigation. [Para 43] [478-
G-H; 479-A)
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRIMELLA 459
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS

6. It cannot be said that it was not necessary to give notice A
of inventory proceedings to anybody other than the m~·mbers of
the family who are entitled to succeed to the estate or disclose
any charge on the property. So long as there is no bar for
transferring the undivided interest in the estate by any -of the -
legal heirs, any c_harge or liability to the estate was also to be
B
disclosed in the inventory proceedings so that the estate could
be partitioned taking note of such charges, and in case of litigation,
the proceedings would have awaited the outcome thereof. [Para
45) [479-C-D]
7. Thus, Defendants 7 and 8 had full knowledge of the suit
for specific performance and also the liability to the Cooperative c
Bank when they chose the disputed property as the\r ·share in
the inventory proceedings and yet, they were not prepared to
even clear the liability to the Cooperative Bank. It was the Plaintiff
who paid the money and averted the auction sale and redeemed
the property. Had the Plaintiff not cleared the dues to the Bank, D
the property would have been auctioned, divesting Defendants 7
and 8 of their rights and interests in the property. [Para 46] [479-
F-G)
8. In view of the conduct of the parties, this is not a fit case
to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the E
Constitution of India. On reading the correspondence between
the parties, it is clear that the Plaintiff has throughout been ready
and willing to perforin its obligations under the Agreement to
Sell. The other unique feature of this case is that the suit property
is an island off the coast of Goa which is not readily capable of
valuation. This fact also shows that monetary compensation would F
not suffice and be an adequate alternative to specific performance.
The third unique feature of this case is that, the Plaintiff went to
the extent of discharging the mortgage with the Bank by paying
a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs which was almost three times the amount
of the consideration mentioned in the agreement, i.e., Rs. G
6,50,000/-. [Paras 48 and 49] [480-E-H)
-
9. It is clear that Defendants 1 to 6 failed or neglected to
complete the sale even after clear title was made out when the
obstacle of the mortgage was removed. Clause 9 of the sale
agreement specifically states that if after the title is made out, H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A the vendor fails and neglects to complete the sale, and/or to carry
out any of the obligations on his part as contained in the
Agreement, the purchaser shall be at liberty to enforce specific
performance of the Agreement or recover the earnest money
with interest at 21 per cent per annum at their option. Having
clearly opted throughout to enforce specific performance, justice
B
of the case requires that Clause 9 of_the agreement must be
applied in favour of the Plaintiff. After inducing the plaintiff as
per PW-1/F letter to pay Rs.17 lakhs to the co-operative bank to
clear the dues on the clear understanding that the defendants 1
to 8 would thereafter execute the sale deed, they cannot go back.
c The clear title stood made out at that stage and the agreement
was enforceable thereafter. [Para 50) [481-B-E]
10. Even if the undivided share of one of the other heirs of
the property cannot be transferred, the remaining share of the
other heirs certainly can be transferred. [Para 51) [481-E-F]
D Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC
517; Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi (Smt) and Anr. (1994)
4 SCC 18; A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Dead) and Ors. v.
P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 636;
Surinder Singh v. Kapoor Singh (Dead) Through Lrs.
E and Ors, (2005) 5 SCC 142 : 2005 (3) SCR1084;
Gajara Vishnu Gosavi v. Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble
and Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 654 : 2009 (14) SCR 569 -
relied on .
. 11. It is not correct fo say that under Article 2177 of the
F Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, there was an absolute bar for
transfer of any portion of the estate or a specific item of the estate.
Article 2177 does not prohibit alienation of undivided interest,
which is in tune with the principle underlying Section 44 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Defendants 1-8 had already given
up on their right in the suit property by not taking steps to avoid
G the distress sale at the instance of the Bank. Despite specifically
getting reserved a liberty to proceed further after the redemption
of the property by the Plaintiff, nothing was done by Defendants
7 and 8. They also did not exercise their right of pre-emption
available under the Portuguese Law. Conspicuously, none of the
H defendants entered the witness box despite the voluminous and
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 461
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS

clinching evidence tendered by the Plaintiff, obviously to avoid A
inconvenient questions, particularly, based on PW-1/F. [Paras
57 and 58] [486-C-D; F-H) -
12. No substantial or grave injustice is caused to th·e
Defendants, in particular, Defendant No. 9, who, with open eyes,
purchased litigation. On the contrary, the justice of the case, on B
facts, is in favour of the Plaintiff, and therefore, no interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution is required. Once, it is found
that justice of the case on facts does not _require interference,
this Court, even at the appellate stage, is well within its discretion
to stay its hands off. [Paras 59 and 60] [487-A-C]
c
Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. v. Salambin Mohammad
(1999) 2 sec 635 : 1999 (1) SCR 901 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
(1990) 3 sec 517 relied on Para 52
(1994) 4 sec 18 relied on Para 53 D
(2000) 10 sec 636 · relied on Para 54
2005 (3) SCR 1084 relied on Para 55
2009 (14) SCR 569 relied on Para 56
1999_(1) SCR 901 relied on Para59
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2910
of2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.20 I 0 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bembay, Panaji Bench, Goa in First Appeal No. 179 of
2003.
F
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2909, 291Iand2912 of2013
Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 89 of2016 in C. A. No. 2910 of20l3 .
. J.P. Cama, Amit Sibal, Sr. Advs., Ajay Veer Singh Jain, R. K.
Verma, U. R. Bokadia, Atul Agarwal, Ms. Divya Garg, Mohd. Irshad
G
Hanif, Ms. Shobha, Ms. Akanksha Kaushik, Yashraj Singh Deora,
. Ms.Priyadarshinee Singh, Ms. Ashmita Singh, Ms .. Shalini Sati Prasad,
Vivek Raja, Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Amitesh Chandra Mishra, Nishant
Awana, Ms. Rini·Badoni, Azmat H. Amanullah, Ms. Vishakha. Jha,
Debdatta Ray Choudhary, Mis. Karanjawala & Co., Balaji Srinivasan,
Advs. with themforthe appearing)larties. H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J.: 1. These appeals essentially deal with a dispute on
the validity and executability of an agreement for sale and once that
issue is tackled, the rest are practically not of much significance. The
parties are described as they are in the suit for specific performance
B No. 88/1987 on the file of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao.
The Plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The Plaintiff had sought for
specific performance of the agreement dated 04.09.1985 made with
Defendants I to 6 for conveyance of the suit property known as Conco
situated at village Palolem in Canacona Taluka in the State of Goa. The
7•h Defendant was the Bank where the Defendants had mortgaged the
c suit property.
2. In the agreement dated 04.09.1985, the Defendants I to 6
claimed that they were the absolute owners of the suit property and that
the property was free from all attaclur.ents, charges, etc. The agreed
consideration was Rs.6.5 lakhs and, on the date of agreement, Rs.SO,
D 000 was given as advance. The relevant portions of the agreement for
sale dated 04.09.1985, are extracted below:
"3.The Vendor hereby declares that the said land agreed
to be sold is free from any encumbrance, attachment, charge
or other claims. rights and demands, and is not affected by
E any notice or scheme of acquisition or requisition and that
the Vendors have among themselves the full QQ_wer and
absolute authority to sell and deal with the said land. The
Vendor shall at his own expense effectually indemnify and
keep indemnified the purchasers from and against all claims.
F demands. losses. damages, cost and expenses. if any and
whatsoever, sustained, incurred or suffer by the Purchaser,
on account of any defect in the title of the_ Vendor or any
change or encumbrance or any scheme of acquisition or
requisition affecting the land hereby contracted to be sold.

G 4. The Purchaser has this day paid to the Vendor the
sum ofRs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as and by
way of earnest money (the payment and receipt whereof
the Vendor does hereby admit and acknowledges) and the
balance of the purchase money amounting to Rs.6 lacs
(Rupees six lacs only) shall be paid at the time of the
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 463
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

completion of the sale. Simultaneously with the execution A
of this agreement the Vendor shall at his own cost furnish
to the Purchasers an abstract of all title deeds and other
papers and writings including copies or extracts from records .
of the Talati or Circle Inspector relating to the said land.
The sale shall be completed within one month from the date
8
of establishment of a good and marketable title of the
Vendor."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"6. The Vendor hereby agrees to answer all reasonable
requisitions and satisfy all objections on title to be 1nade by c
the Purchasers or their Solicitor or Representatives. If a
good and marketable title is made out and the said land is
found to be free from all encumbrance, attachments and
charges and other rights, demands and claims and not
effected by any notice or scheme of acquisition or requisition
AND permission and no objection from any Authority or D
Authorities, if any, is obtained by the Vendor, the Vendor
will execute a proper conveyance or conveyance in favour
of the Purchasers or their nominee 01· nominees or assigns
in which the Vendor shall makethe other person or persons,
if any. join, if nece;;sary. to pass and convey an absolute E
title unto the Purchaser or his nominee or nominees or
assigns or to redeem any charge or encumbrances. The
Vendor shall bear and pay all outgoings, expenses and
liabilities in respect of the said land upto and inclusive of
the day of the completion of the sale. The Vendor shall
hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the Purchaser F
of the said land at the time of completion of the sale."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"8. If a good and marketable title is not made out or the
said land is found to be subject to any encumbrances G
charges or attachments or other claims, rights or demands
the Purchaser shall be at liberty to rescind this Agreement
and the Vendor shall in the event forthwith refund the said
earnest money with interest at 21 % per annum.
9. If the Vendor fails and or neglects to complete the
H
' 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A sale after the title being made out as aforesaid or otherwise
to carry out any one or more of the obligations on his part
as herein contained or enjoyed upon by any law for the
time being in force the Purchaser shall be at liberty to enforce
specific performance of this Agreement or recover the
earnest money with interest at 21 % per annum."
B
(Emphasis supplied)
3. It may be relevant to note that the sale was to be c:ompleted
,within one month from the date of establishment ofa good and marketable
title of the vendor and, if the title was not made out or in case the said
c land was found to be subject to any encumbrance or charges or
attachments or other claims, rights or demands, the Plaintiff was at liberty
to rescind the agreement and, in that event, the Defendants 1 to 6 would
refund the earnest money with interest@2 l per cent per annum, It was
also agreed between the parties that in case the Defendants 1 to 6 fail to
complete the sale after a good and marketable title is made out, the
D Plaintiff was at liberty to enforce the specific performance of the
agreement or recover the earnest money with interest @ 21 per cent
per annum. It is also significant to note that the Defendants 1 to 6 had
clearly agreed to give a clear title to the property, if necessary by joining
any ·other person or persons or even to redeem any charge or
E encumbrance.
4. Defendants I to 6 traced their authority to transfer the property
to ,a deed of declaration of succession executed by them on 03 .11.1981
before a Notary Public as provided under the Portuguese Law. It was
declared that Vishwanata Putshotam Sinai Gaitonde and his wife
F Anandibai Viswanata Gaitonde died intestate ... "leaving'their sole and
only heirs their three children ... "and" ... there does not exist persons,
who, according to law, tnay have preferential right over the said legal
heirs or may concur with them to the estate." It was further declared
that their parents ... "left no movable pr(lperties but only an immovable
property situated at Palolem Canacona known iis Conco" (the suit
G. property).

5. On account of the Portuguese personal law applicable in Goa,
their wives also became heirs and thus the agreement for sale with the
· Plaintiff was executed by Defendants I to 6. ' J.O
6. While the steps for the sale were in progress, Smt. Kishori
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRIMELLA 465
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

Nayak daughter ofVishwanata Purshotam Sinai Gaitonde and Anandibai A
Viswanata Gaitonde, real sister of Defendants I, 3 and 5 raised an
objection that she was also entitled to succeed to the estate of her parents
and, in particular, she was interested in the suit property, and therefore,
they should not proceed with tbe sale.
7. Smt. Kishori Nayak was later impleaded as 7th Defendant fo B
the suit and her husband as the 8th. According to the 7th Defendant, she
had informed the Plaintiff of her objection. But in any case,·it has come
in the evidence of Plaintiff that the 1~Defendant- Shri Gurudas Gaitonde
had informed the Plaintiff af>out the objection, by his letter· dated
03.04.1987.
c
8. In the Special Civil Suit No. 88/87/A filed by the Plaintiff in
the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, the Plaintiff claimed
that the agreement was enforceable at the option of the Plaintiff-
purchaser. To quote paragraph-7 of the plaint:
"7. The Plaiptiff submits that the said Agreement dated 4•h D
September, 1985 is specifically enforceable at the option of
the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is entitled to purchase of the
suit property on the terms and conditions contained in the
said Agreement. In terms of the said Agreement, the
Defendants no. 1 to 6 are liable to make out a good and
marketable title of the suit property free from all E
encumbrances, restrictions, charges, claims and demands
and execute a proper conveyance by joining other person
or persons thereto, ifnecessary, to convey an absolute title
thereof to the plaintiff."
9. At paragraph-14, the Plaintiff has acknowledged the receipt of F
letter dated 03.04.1987 from Defendant 1, to treat the .agreement as
cancelled. Paragraph-14 reads as follows:
"14. In the meantime, the plaintiff received a demand draft
bearing No. OL/A/85 016341 dated 3-4-1987 drawn on
State Bank oflndia for a sum of Rs 20,000/~ the defendant G
no. I alongwith a letter expressing the intention of the
defendants no. 1 to 6 to treat the agreement dated· 4•h
September, 1985 as cancelled."
I 0. Contextually, we may refer to the letter dated 03.04.1987 which
is Exhibit-PW l/C in the suit. To the extent relevant, the letter reads as H

' 0
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A follows:
"Dear Shri Malhotra,
In my letter dated 5.3.87, I have informed regarding my
inability to sale of land at Canacona.
B Mr. Bhatnagar called on to me last Thursday. I have to
explain also the position to him. He advised me to sell the
property and forget about the notice of my sister. He said
you are able to face any action from my sister's side, to be
frank I am helpless.

c I discussed the issue with lawyer I am told that in any
case sale would invite serious litigation and I would not be
left out even if you take over this responsibility particularly
if my sister exercises her right of preemption.
As you know that I am not keeping well due to my heart
D problem and family litigation will aggravate my health.
I have thought over this aspect seriously and only you
can relieve me from this agony.
As promised in my above letter 5.3.87 I am sending
with this letter a bank draft for Rs.20,000/-. The balance I
E shall remit as early as possible kindly bear with me some
time .... "
The Plaintiff, however, did not accept the amount but insisted on
specific performance.
11. The suit originally maintained only the following reliefs:
F
"
(a) That Your Horiour may be pleased to pass a decree for
specific performance of contract dated 4•h September,
1985 made between the defendants no. I to 6 and the
G plaintiff and direct the said defendants to execute a proper
deed of Conveyance of the suit property viz., the property
known as "CONCO" situated at Village Palolem in
Canacona Taluka, registered under No.J 4858 and 14859
of Book B-41, F 1. 64 (overleaf) in the Land Registration
Office at Margao, Goa surveyed under Survey No. 119,
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRIMELLA 467
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

Sub-Division no. I ofNagarsem-Palolem Village and may A
further be pleased to direct the said defendants to do all
11cts, deeds and things for registration of the said Deed
of Conveyance;
(b) That Your Honour may be pleased to direct defendants
no. I to 6 to join the defendant no. 7 as a confirming B
party to the said Deed of Conveyance and arrange for
execution of the said deed by the defendant no. 7 as a
confirming party;
(c) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from selling, transferring and/or creating any c
encumbrance, interest, charge, restriction, claim or
dem11nd on the said property in favour of any person or
persons other than the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;
(d) For interim injunction in terms of prayer (c);
(e) For such other further reliefs as Your Honour may deem D
fit and proper;
(t) For costs as Your Honour may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
12. In the written statement filed on I 0.02.1988, Defendants 1 to
E
6 took the stand that the sale as per agreement could be performed only
"if a good and marketable title is made out" and if not, the agreement
was rescindable.
J 3, The objections on the part of the sister of Defendants 1, 3 and
5 and her buspand were also brought out in the written statement. To F .
quote:
\3. ''Sometime in the month of Feb. '87, sister of
defendant No. I, 3 & 5 and her husband set up a claim to
the ancestral property as a whole including the suit property.
On account of this the defendants.were in a tight corner on
the subject of sale of the suit property. Defendant No. I G
accordingly wrote two letters one after the other to the
plaintiffs informing them of the defendants' inability to
convey title as per the agreement. A copy of the defendants
letter dated 05.03.87 is annexed hereto marked as Exhibit
5. Thereafter on 03.04.87 defendant No. I sent a Bank H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

, A draft of Rs 20,000/- alongwith a covering letter which is
self explanatory. Annexed hereto and marked exhibit 6 is a
copy of the said letter.
Plaintiffs have suppressed these material facts and as
such are disentitled for equitable relief of specific
B performance. Plaintiffs have not approached this Court with
clean hands and this suit therefore has to be dismissed on
this ground alone."
14. At paragraph-16 of the written statement, it was also disclosed
that the attempt on the part of the Defendants I, 3 and 5 to purchase
c peace with their sister did not fructify and that she had filed a civil suit
for injunction. To quote paragraph-16:
"16. Defendants did write to the plaintiff's lawyer that
detailed reply would be sent as there was attempt from the
defendant's side to close the issue with the disputant sister
D and her husband to enable the defendants to complete the
sale. But unfortunately, the sister Smt. Kishori P. Nayak
and her husband, Shri Prabhakant R. Nayak did not settle
the issue amicably and filed a civil suit in the court of the
Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao. The said suit is
registered as special civil suit no. 105/87/A and a civil
E application filed in the same is registered as Misc.
Application No. 212/87/A. The Honourable Court has
a
passed temporary injunction order restrainjng the
defendants from executing sale deed in respect of the suit
property in favour of the plaintiffs who are impleaded as
F Defendant no. 7 in the said suit. The plaintiffs in the said
suit have inter alia challenged the enforceability and legality
of the agreement dated 4.09.85 which is the subject matter
of this suit also.
Defendants 1 to 6 herein state and submit that for proper
G and effective adjudication of this suit Smt. Kishori
Prabhakant Nayak and Shri Prabhakant R. Nayak should
be added in this suit as defendants as they have leveled a
challenge to the enforceability of the agreement sought to
be specifically enforced in this suit by the plaintiff herein."

H ,. 15. In short, Defendants I to 6 wanted the suit to be dismissed in
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 469
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

view of the objection of Smt. Kishori Nayak. A
16. It may be noted that Defendant 7 originally was the Cooperative
Bank with whom the suit property had been mortgaged; but it appears
on clearing the loan, the Bank was deleted and thereafter Smt. Kishori
Nayak was impleaded as Defendant 7 and her husband Shri Prabhakant
Ramrai Nayak as Defendant 8. B
17. Special Civil Suit No. 105/1987/A was filed by Smt. Kishori
Nayak, re<>I sister of Defendants 1, 3 and 5 and her husband Shri
Prabhakant R. Nayak before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao
against Defendants 1 to 6 and the Plaintiff. It was a suit for declaration,
permanent and temporary injunction. It was stated in the plaint that apart c
from the suit property of Civil Suit No. 88/1987, five other items of
property were also left intestate. It was averred that the agreement of
sale of any property without the sister and her husband is null and void.
To quote from paragraph-7:
"7. Plaintiffs state that the defendants no. 7 is a company D
which has entered into an agreement to sell the suit property
with defendant nos. I to 6 on the 4"' of September, 1985,
which agreement is impugned herein, ignoring the legal rights
of the plaintiffs to the suit property, in collusion with one
another and are about to execute the deed of conveyance
and as such the plaintiffs are compelled to file the suit to E
seek the assistance of this Hon 'ble Court by an appropriate
order of declaration and permanent injunction restraining
the defendant number 1 to 6 from in any manner alienating
and/or executing any deed of conveyance or any other
instrument of transfer of possession of the suit property to F
the name of the defendant no. 7 in pursuance of the
impugned agreement to sell allegedly entered into on 4'"
September 1985 declaring that the said agreement is ab-
initio null and void ad hence unforceable specifically."
18. Again, at paragraph-9, it has been averred that: G
"9. Plaintiffs state that they being co-sharers and co-owners
of the suit property as aforesaid the defendant nos. 1 to 6
had no authority in law to negotiate the said deal without
their consent and knowledge with defendant no. 7 and on
this count alone the alleged agreement to- sell and/or the
H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A alleged deed of sale dated 4th December 1985 is ab-initio
void and the plaintiff's are entitled in law for such a
declaration."
19. At paragraph-14, it was m<:rn:d t1..i1 tl1c entire properties, left
intestate being ancestral, the same arc robe divided only as per Portuguese
B Law of Succession through invenwry proceedings. To quote from
paragraph-14:
·' 14. Plaintiffs state that their share in the ancestral suit
property is undivided and indivisible till the suit property as
well as other ancestral properties are auctioned in appropriate
c inventory proceedings to be initiated under the Portuguese
Law of Succession and till the shares of the heirs are
ascertained and as such the suit properly or any part of the
same cannot be sold as contemplated under the agreement
of sale dated 4th September 1985 ia exclusion to them.
Plaintiffs state that even ifthe inventory proceedings are
D initiated and the properties art: auctioned amongst the
members of the family, they are entitled to exercise their
right of preemption and under the prevailing law of
succession governing this land."
20. Though there had been several other developments in between,
E it is not necessary to refer t0 those aspects. Suffice to note that in the
meantime, inventory proceedings were initiated before the same court
of Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao at the instance of Defendants
7 and 8 namely, Smt. Kishori P. Nayak and her husband Shri Prabhakant
R. Nayak. Paragraphs- I to 4 of the petition being relevant are extracted
F herein:
"\.The applicants are the daughter and son-in-law of the
Late Visvonata Purxotoma Sinai Gaitondc and the late
Anandibai V. Gaitonde who died on 26.10.1966 and
25.06.1976 respectively. Hereto annexed are the death
G certificates.
2. The deceased left behind their heirs, their three sons and
their daughter, the applicant no. I herein.
3. The estate of the deceased has nm yet been pa1titioned
and continues undivided.
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 471
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

4. The son of the deceased, Mr. Ratnakar Vishwanath A
Gaitonde, resident of Vishwanath Sunirti, Super Market,
Ponda, Goa is competent to be appointed as Cabeca de
casal, he being the eldest son of the deceased."
·.. - -· 21. In the invento1y proceedings, the auction took place on
01.12.1990. The suit property was auctioned by the 71h Defendant- Smt. B
Kishori Nayak and the remaining estate was also divided amongst the
other heir& and the final orders in the inventory proceedings was passed
by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao on 30.01.1991.
22. The Plaintiff, thereafter, filed Civil Suit No. 329/1992 seeking
a declaration that inventory proceedings were vitiated by fraud to the c
extent of allocation of suit property to the 71h Defendant Smt. Kishori
Nayak and her husband and for setting aside the inventory proceedings.
23. In the meantime, the Cooperative Bank initiated recovery
proceedings by putting the suit property to public auction. The Bank
obtained an award and published the proclamation for the sale of the suit D
property by pub Iic auction. On I0.01.1989, the Defendants 7 and 8, hence,
filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 3/1989/B for injunction restraining the bank
from proceeding with the sale. That suit was decreed as compromised
on 23 .04.1992. The relevant paragraphs from the decree read as follows:
"5. In such circumstances, the plaintiff was though legally E
not bound, morally feels her obligation not to put in jeopardy
the interest of the Bank, therefore she guarantees the
payment of the debt to the Bank (defendant no. 2) reserving
her right to recover the amount from defendant no. I (Smt.
Sunita Gaitonde)"
F
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"9. The plaintiff further agrees that in the event the plaintiff
fails to pay the entire liability within a period of 15 (fifteen)
days, the defendant no. 2 is free to sell the suit property in
auction and realize from the proceeds of the auction sale
G
the amount of loans, interest and other charges with clear
understanding that the asset value shall not be less than the
amount of principal and interest and other charges."
(Emphasis supplied)
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 6 S.C.R.

A 24. The Defendants 7 and 8 did not make any payment to the
Bank so as to avert the distress sale of the suit property and neither did
Defendants 1 to 6. The Defendants 7 and 8 in the compromise decree
had gone to the extent of giving up all hopes by agreeing that in case,
they failed to pay the dues, the suit property could be sold but the only
condition was thatthe sale amount should cover the entire liability arising
B
out of the loan including interest and other charges meaning thereby that
they were worried only about saving other assets. It is at that juncture
that the Plaintiff cleared the entire liability on payment of Rs. 17 lakh on
12.05.1993. Thus, the distress sale was averted, the mortgage was
redeemed and the charge on the property was released
c
25. The Defendants 7 and 8 filed a writ petition before the High
Court challenging the proceedings of the Assistant Registrar culminating
in redemption of mortgage. The Writ Petition was disposed of by judgment
dated 10.10 1994, stating :

D "Respondents Nos. 4 to ·10 mortgaged a property to
respondent No.2, Bank and took certain loan. The amount
was not paid by them. Respondent No.2, Bank, obtained
the said certificate and started recovery proceedings in
which the property was put to sale. At the time of the sale,
E respondent no. I, claiming interest in the property on the
basis of some Agreement of Sale, allegedly executed by
respondents Nos. 4 to I 0 in their favour paid Rs. 17,00,000/
- to the Recovery Officer, as a result of which the Recovery
Officer stopped the sale and directed the redemption of the
mortgage in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 10.
F
2. The present petitioners claimed some title to the property
under inventory proceedings in 53/90/A. They were not
parties to the mortgage, nor they are members ofrespondent
Nos. 2 Bank. They challenged the order passed by the
Recovery Officer on the ground that the amount tendered
G by the respondent No. I could not have been accepted by
the Recovery Officer for the purpose of passing an order
ofredemption in favour of the mortgagors. !fat all such an
order was wrongly passed by the Recovery Officer the
person to be prejudiced would have been the Bank. The
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 473
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

mo11gagors as well as the Bank did not have any grievance A
on the point.
3. Grievance is sought to be raised by a third party, who
has hardly any locus standi in a proceeding under Rule 104
because the petitioners had never offered to pay any amount,
nor had they ever paid anything, either to the Bank, or to B
the Recovery Officer. Under such circumstances, we do
not think that the impugned order is against justice, equity
and good conscience.
4. Needless to say that ifthe petitioners claiming mere title
to the property have some rights to the property in question. c
They would be at liberty to pursue their rights according to
law. Petition is therefore disposed of.''
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed for default on
18.09.1990 and was ultimately restored only on 05.02.1994. Thereafter D
the suit was amended and Smt. Kishori Nayak and her husband were
impleaded as additional Defendants, in 1998.
27. Additional reliefs for compensation to the tune of
Rs.12,29,030.80 and Rs.2,68,29,038.80 were added. The challenge to
the inventory proceedings was also incorporated by way of the E
amendment.
28. On 14.11.1995, the 7111 and 8 111 Defendants, viz., the sister
Smt. Kishori and her husband, who had obtained the suit property in the
inventory proceedings, sold the same to the 9 111 Defendant-Syscon
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the Plaintiff sought amendment for F
cancel Iing that sale also. It may be stated that the 9111 Defendant purchased
the suit property for a sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- knowing fully well that the
said property was in litigation and the fate of some of the litigations.
29. Though, there were certain other factual aspects as well, it is
not necessary to refer to the same. Suffice it to note that Civil Suit Nos. G
88/1987 and 105/1987 were tried together as per orders of High Court
of Bombay dated 19.04.1990 in Appeal from Order No. 54/89 with Civil
Application No. 192/89.
30. By common judgment dated 31.12.200 I, the Trial Court
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A disposed of both suits upholding the right of 71h and 81h Defendants (the
sister and her husband). The Defendants I to 6 were directed to refund
the advance of Rs. 50 thousand with interest @ 21 per cent per annum
from the date of institution of the suit to the Plaintiff and further
Defendants I to 8 were directed to refund an amount of Rs.17 lakhs to
the Plaintiff with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from 12.05 .1993.
B
31.Aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed First Appeal No. 179/2003 before
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa. During the
pendency of the appeal, on 08.10.2003, the entire decree amount was
deposited before the High Court.

c 32. As per the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the
appeal in part, and partly reversed the trial court judgment therein. To
the extent of the share of Defendants I to 6, in the suit property, the suit
was decreed. Defendants I to 6 were permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited in court after the decree was being fully satisfied. Thus, the
appeals at the instance of the Defendants and one by the Plaintiff for
D the l/4'h share Of Defendants 7 and 8 and another at the instance of
Defendant 9, the purchaser.
33. Being a first appeal, the High Court has in fact dealt with
the issues as framed by the Trial Court. The following were the issues
framed by the Trial Court and their findings:
E
"ISSUES FINDINGS
(I) Whether the plaintiff Negative
proves that the plaintiff is
enti tied for specific
F performance of contract
dated 4.9.85?
(2) Whether the plaintiff Negative
proves that order in
lnvento1y Proceedings
No.55/90/A is liable to be
G vitiated as obtained by
fraud and also illegal to the
extent of allotment of the
suit property to the
defendant No.7?.
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRIMELLA 475
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

A
(3) Whether the plaintiff Negative
proves that the defendants
No. 7 and 8 lost 1ight of
preemption, even if they had
the said 1ight under law?
(4) Whether the plaintiff Negative B
proves that the defendants
No. I to 6 are I iahle to pay to
the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.12,29,030.80 as
compensation for breach of c
con tract in addition to the
specific performance?
(5) Whether the plaintiff Partly in affinnative
proves that defendants No. I
to 6 are also liable to pay to
the plaintiff compensation of D
Rs.2,68,29,038.80 in lieu of
specific performance?
(6) Whether the defendants Affirmative
No.7 and 8 prove that they
have tight of preemption in E
respect of the suit property
and that the agreement dated
4 .9 .85 entered between the
plaintiff and the defendant
nos. I to 6 is null and void?
F
(7) Whether the defendants Affirmative
No. 7 and 8 are justified in
selling the suit property to
the defendant No.9 within
their own tights?
G
(8) What relief? What order? As per law."

34. On issue no. I, the High Court took the view:
"I 07 .... Respondent Nos. I to 6 never objected per se
to perform the agreement. They, to put it mildly, expressed
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A their inability to perform even their part of the agreement
on the ground that Respondent No. 7 had raised a claim as
regards her one-fourth share in the property. Their bona
tides are, therefore, put to the test when the Appellant
submitted that it was willing to accept at least or even the
share of the Respondent Nos. I to 6 in the suit property
B
without claiming any reduction in the price. Surely,
Respondent Nos. I to 6 then cannot have any objection
whatsoever to a decree to the extent of their share in the
suit property."
35. Regarding sale of the suit property by Defendants 7 and 8 to
c Defendant 9, it was held that Defendant 9 admittedly bought the property
with the full knowledge of the litigations, and hence, Defendant 9 was
not entitled to any equities. Thus, issue no. I was answered in the
affirmative in favour of the Plaintiff, limited to the extent of share of
Defendants I to 6.
D 36. On issue no.2, the High Court was of the view that the Plaintiff
was deliberately kept in the dark about the inventory proceedings. It
was also noted by the High Court that despite granting time to produce
eviden'ce on the relinquishment of their rights by Defendants 7 and 8,
nothing was done. It was further noted that the Inventory Comi was not
E informed of the deed of declaration or about the agreement in litigation
or about the mortgage of the suit property to the Cooperative Bank.
None of Defendants led any evidence. The Plaintiff was denied an
opportunity in the inventory proceedings to protect their interest. The
High Court further held that even assuming that the inventory proceedings
were not conducted fraudulently, the orders passed therein could not
F bind the Plaintiff as it was not a party thereto.
37. On issue no.3, it was held that since Defendants 7 and 8 did
not exercise their right of preemption, they lost their right. And, on issue
no. 6, it was held that the suit agreement dated 04.09.1985, between the
Plaintiff and Defendants I to 6 was legally valid and not void.
G
3 8. On issue no.4, regarding compensation, the Comi though held
that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages, but no decree was granted
since the Plaintiff made a statement that in case specific performance
. was granted it would not insist on a decree for compensation.
39. On issue no.7, it was held that Defendants 7 and 8 were
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 477
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

entitled to sell only one quarter interest in the suit property and not the A
three quarter interest of Defendants I to 6 and the suit was decreed
accordingly. There was no separate decree in the suit filed by Defendants
7 and 8.
40. A suit for specific performance, being a suit for equitable
relief, this Court has the duty to see what ultimately is the justice of the B
case. The suit property, no doubt is jointly owned by Defendants I to 8.
But the agreement for sale was only by the Defendants I to 6. They not
only excluded the sister and her husband but made two deliberate and
wrong representations: that Defendants 1, 3 and 5 are the only children
of Late Vishwanta Purshotam Sinai Gaitonde and that the suit property
was the only estate left by their parents. The agreement for specific
c
performance, no doubt, contained a clause that the sellers would make a
good and marketable title of the property. Fully conscious of the fact
that there was another heir namely the sister and that the property had
already been mortgaged to the Cooperative Bank, a very significant
clause was incorporated in the agreement to the effect that the vendors D
could execute a proper conveyance in favour of the purchasers and in
that regard, the vendors would make any other person or persons to join
them so as to convey an absolute title to the purchaser or to redeem any
charge or encumbrance. This clause clearly shows that the Defendants
1 to 6, though acted ii I-advisedly by not joining the sister and her husband
in the agreement and by not disclosing the mortgage, had still genuinely E
intended to execute the sale covering both the eventualities namely, joining
the sister and her husband and redeeming the mortgage (see Clause 6 of
the Agreement of Sale extracted at pages 3-4).
41. At one stage, Defendants I to 8 apparently were sailing
together, faced with the distress sale of the suit property by the bank. It F
was in that context that the Defendants I to 6 made a request to the
Plaintiff that in case the Plaintiff cleared the loan liability, they would get
in the sister also for the conveyance of the property and settle the whole
dispute. The letter which is Exhibit- PWl/F in the suit, which is dated
14/11I1991 reads as follows: G
"Sale of Property at Canacona.
Further to the discussion of the undersigned with your Shri
A.A. Tandale, this is to confirm that the undersigned and
all his brothers and sister are agreeable to settle the dispute
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A with you amicably on the following terms:
(a) You should pay off the entire loan outstanding with the
Madgaon Urban Co-op. Bank.
(b) All the parties jointly including the bank shall take a
consent decree from the Court and put an end to litigation.
B
(c) Upon completion of the above steps, we shall execute
deed of conveyance in your favour.
We expect your co-operation in implementing this
compromise with maximum expedition.
C This is however without prejudice to our rights and
contentions in the pending suits."
Thereafter, Defendants I to 6 left the Plaintiff to their fate by
permitting the auction sale to take place and consequently wanted the
agreement to get frustrated.
D
42. As far as Defendants 7 and 8 are concerned, they not only
went back on their undertaking in Court to pay the dues to the bank so
as to avert the auction sale, they have not pursued their claim if any, to
the title to the property as per the liberty granted to them by judgment
dated I 0'11 October, 1994 of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 277 of
E 1994. The High Court apparently was clear in its mind, that if at all
Defendants 7 and 8 wanted to save the situation by exercising their right
to preemption under the Portuguese Laws, they could still du that within
six months. Yet, nothing was done. In any case, 1119re than six months
after the judgment dated I 0.10.1994, they sold the suit property on
14.11.1995 when as a matter of fact Defendants I to 8 had by their
F
conduct forfeited all rights and interests in respect of the suit property.
Thus, there is no question ofright of preemption available to Defendants
7 and 8.
43. It may not also be wholly out of context to take note of the
fact that the Defendants 7 and 8 chose, with the assent of Defendants I
G to 6 in the inventory proceedings, the suit prope1ty, fully knowing that the
property was disputed. Normally, one would avoid a disputed property
or leave a disputed property to the authors of the dispute, i.e., the brothers
in this case. It would also be relevant to note that none of the Defendants
1-8 told the District Judge in the inventory proceedings that the property
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 479
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

was already in dispute, and that two civil suits were pending, in which A
case the District Judge would have certainly taken note of the Iitigation.
44. Under the agreement, the time for performance starts within
one month from the date of the vendors making out a marketable title to
the property. The agreement also contained a provision to join any other
person or persons to convey an absolute title to the purchasers or for B
redeeming any mortgage. And thus, the suit by the Plaintiffs originally
had the Bank as a party Defendant, and, after clearing the loan, the
Bank was deleted from the array of parties and Smt. Kishori and her
husband were joined as Defendants 7 and 8.
45. It was vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel Shri c
Dhruv Mehta that it was not necessary to give notice of inventory
proceedings to anybody other than the members of the family who are
entitled to succeed to the estate or disclose any charge on the property.
We are afraid that this submission cannot be appreciated. So long as
there is no bar for transferring the undivided interest in the estate by any
of the legal heirs, any charge or liability to the estate was also to be D
disclosed in the inventory proceedings so that the estate could be
partitioned taking note of such charges, and in case of litigation, the
proceedings would have awaited the outcome thereof.
46. Defendants 7 and 8, viz., Smt. Kishori and her husband knew
very well when they instituted the inventory proceedings that there was E
an agreement for sale of one of the items in the estate executed by her
brothers and their wives and that a suit for specific performance of that
agreement had already been pending in Court. And yet, it was not
disclosed. Interestingly, and ifnot shockingly, the Defendants 1to6 also
did not disclose before the court in the inventory proceedings anything F
about the mortgage to the bank, Thus, in any case, Defendants 7 and 8
had full knowledge of the suit for specific performance and also the
liability to the Cooperative Bank when they chose the disputed property
as their share in the inventory proceedings and yet, they were not
prepared to even clear the Iiabil ity to the Cooperative Bank. It was the
Plaintiff who paid the money and averted the auction sale and redeemed G
the property. Had the Plaintiff not cleared the dues to the Bank, the
property would have been auctioned, divesting Defendants 7 and 8 of
their rights and interests in the property.
4 7. The issue of !is pendens, in any case, on facts, is clear in the
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A sense that even assuming for argument's sake that Civil Suit No. 88 of
1987 stood dismissed at the time of the order in the inventory proceedings,
Civil Suit No. 105 of 1987 in respect of the same property, wherein a
declaration and injunction had been sought by Defendants 7 and 8
(Plaintiffs in Suit No. 105of1987), was pending. Both suits were directed
to be tried together as well. It is significant to note that there was only
B
one set of issues framed for the purpose of trial of both suits. It is also
significant to note that even according to Defendants 1 to 6 in their
written statement, their stand was:
" .... The plaintiffs in the said suit have inter alia challenged
the enforceability and legality of the agreement dated 4.09.85
c which is the subject matter of this suit also ... "
The inventory proceedings, thus, would have been subject to the
result of the suits. As far as the transfer of property to Defendant 9 is
concerned, the Plaintiff's Suit for Specific Performance No. 88of1987
stood restored and its Suit No. 329 of ·1992 stood pending on the date
D (14.11.1995) when Defendant 9 purchased the suit property which would
also be subject to the result of the pending suits.
48. In view of the conduct of the parties, which we have explained
above, we do not think that this is a fit case to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Three prominent
E features of this case stare us in the face. First and foremost, on reading
the correspondence between the parties, we are satisfied that the Plaintiff
has throughout been ready and willing to perform its obligations under
the Agreement to Sell. In particular, a reference may be made to the
letters dated 08.04.1986 and 15.04.1987 and the legal notice dated
F 08.04.1987. The other unique feature of this case is that the suit property
is an island off the coast of Goa which is not readily capable of valuation
- indeed when asked to give us the present market value, both sides
were unable to do so. This fact also shows that monetary compensation
would not suffice and be an adequate alternative to specific performance.

G 49. The third unique feature of this case is that, as has been pointed
out hereinabove, the Plaintiff went to the extent of discharging the
mortgage with the Bank by paying a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs· which was
almost three times the amount of the consideration mentioned in the
agreement, i.e., Rs. 6,50,000/-. Clause 9 of the Agreement to Sell is set
out hereunder:-
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 481
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

"If the Vendor fails and or neglects to complete the sale A
after the title being made out as aforesaid or otherwise to
carry out any one or more of the obligations on his part as
herein contained or enjoyed upon by any law for the time
being in force the Purchaser shall be at liberty to enforce
specific performance of this Agreement or recover the
B
earnest money with interest at 21 % per annum."
50. It is clear that Defendants I to 6 failed or neglected to complete
the sale even after clear title was made out when the obstacle of the
mortgage was removed. Clause 9 specifically states that if after the title
is made out, the vendor fai Is and neglects to complete the sale, and/or to
carry out any of the obligations on his part as contained in the Agreement,
c
the purchaser shall be at Iiberty to enforce specific performance of the
Agreement or recover the earnest money with interest at 21 per cent
per annum at their option. Having clearly opted throughout to enforce
specific performance, we are of the view that justice of the case requires
that Clatise 9 must be applied in favour of the Plaintiff. After inducing D
the plaintiff as per PW-1 IF letter to pay Rs.17 lakhs to the cooperative
bank to clear the dues on the clear understanding thatthe defendants I
to 8 would thereafter execute the sale deed, they cannot go back. The
clear title stood made out at that stage and the agreement was enforceable
thereafter.
E
51. There is also a long line of judgments based on the equitable
principle which states that even if the undivided share of one of the
other heirs of the property cannot be transferred, the remaining share of
the other heirs ce1iainly can be transferred.
52. In Kartar Singh v. Harjincler Singh and others 1, at F
paragraph-6, it has been held that :
"6. As regards the difficulty pointed out by the High
Court, namely, that the decree of specific pe1formance
cannot be granted since the property will have to be
partitioned, we are of the view that this is not a legal
G
difficulty. Whenever a share in the property is sold the
vendee has a right to apply for the pa1iition of the property
and get the share demarcated. We also do not see any
difficulty in granting specific performance merely because
1
(1990) 3 sec 517
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A the properties are scattered at different places. There is no
law that the properties to be sold must be situated at one
place. As regards the appo11ionment of consideration, since
admittedly the appellant and respondent's sister each have
half share in the properties, the consideration can easily be
reduced by 50% which is what the First Appellate Court
B
has rightly done."
53. In Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi (Smt) and another, at
paragraph-17, it has been held that:
"17. In view of the finding that the appellant had half
c share in the property contracted to be sold by Kartar Lal,
his brother, the agreement of sale does not bind the appellant.
The decree for specific performance as against Kartar Lal
became final. Admittedly the respondent and her husband
are neighbours. The appellant and his brother being
coparceners or co-owners and the appellant after getting
D the tenant ejected both the brothers started living in the
house. As a prudent purchaser Joginder Nath ought to have
made enquiries whether Kartar Lal had exclusive title to
the property. Evidence of mutation ofnames in the Municipal
Register establishes that the property was mutated in the
E joint names of the appellant and Kartar Lal and was in joint
possession and enjoyment. The courts below, therefore, have
committed manifest error oflaw in exercising their discretion
directing specific performance of the contract of the entire
property. The house being divisible and the appellant being
not a consenting party to the contract, equity and justice
F demand partial enforcement of the contract, instead of
refusing specific performance in its entirety, which would
meet the ends ofjustice. Accordingly we hold that Joginder
Nath having contracted to purchase the property, it must
be referable only in respect ofhalfthe right, title and interest
G held by Kartar Lal, his vendor. The first respondent being
successor in interest, becomes entitled to the enforcement
of the contract of the half share by specific performance.
The decree of the trial court is confirmed only to the· extent
of half share in the aforestated property. The appeal is
'(1994) 4 sec 1s
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRJMELLA 483
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.)

accordingly allowed and the decree of the High Couii is A
set aside and that of the trial court is modified to the above
extent. The parties are directed to bear their own costs
throughout."
54. In A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Dead) and others v. P.A.K.A.
Shahul Hamid and others.3, at paragraph-14, it has been held that: B
"14. Thus we have no hesitation to hold, even where
any property is held jointly, and once any party to the contract
has agreed to sel I such joint property agreement, then, even
if other co-sharer has not joined at least to the extent of his
share, he is bound to execute, the sale deed. However, in c
the absence of other co-sharer there could not be any decree
of any specified part of the property to be partitioned and
possession given. The decree could only be to the extent of
transferring the share of the Appellants in such property to
other such contracting party. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that the Appellants have 5/6 share in the property. D
So, the Plaintiffs suit for specific performance to the extent
of this 5/6th share was rightly decreed by the High Cou11
which requires no interference."
55. In Surinder Singh v. Kapoor Singh (Dead) Through Lrs.
and others\ at paragraphs- 3 and 20, it has been held that: E

"3. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Plaintiffs-
Respondents herein against the said judgment and decree
came to be allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court
by reason of the impugned judgment holding that as the
prope1iy was owned by the Appellant and the said Taj inder F
Kaur in equal share, in view of Kartar Singh (supra), a
decree for specific performance could be granted in favour
of the Plaintiffs-Respondents herein in respect of the share
of the Appellant subject to his right to apply for partition of
the property for getting his share demarcated. As regard G
apportionment of the sale consideration, it was directed that
the same would be reduced by 50% as the Appellant would
only be entitled thereto. As regard the objection of the

' (2000) 1o sec 636
'(2005) s sec 142 H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20!6] 6 S.C.R.

A Appellant herein that no relief could be granted as the
plaintiffs-Respondents failed to mention Khasra Nos. 39/4
and 391312 in the plaint, the Division Bench held that such
omission was inadvertent. It was pointed out that such an
objection was raised only at the time of argument whereupon
the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of plaint. It
B
was held:
" ... We are of the view that the trial court was not
justified in dismissing the application on technical
grounds. Decree was sought for the entire land
i.e. 153 K 19M. Copies of the agreement as well
c as jamabandi for the relevant year were also
attached with the plaint. Agreement as well as
jamabandi clearly indicate that relief sought was
with regard to the land measuring 153 K 19M which
also includes Khasra Nos. 39/4 and 39/3/2. In this
D view of'the matter, prayer of the plaintiffs for
amendment of the plaintiff is allowed. Plaint would
be deemed to have included Khasra Nos. 39/4 and
391312 apart from other Khasra numbers mentioned
in the plaint."

E xxx xxx xxx xxx
20. The Appellant forthermore misled the plaintiffs-
respondents by representing that he had the requisite
authority to enter into an agreement for sale on behalf
of his sister, which was found to be incorrect. In this .
F situation, we are of the view that the equity lies iIJ favour
of grant of decree for specific performance of the
contract in respect of the share of the Appellant rather
than refusing the same. In any event if the Appellant
and/or his sister have claim as regard the arrears of
rent, the same can be adjudicated upon by the appropriate
G court in an appropriate proceeding. We· are, therefore,
unable to accept the said contention of Mr Talwar."
56. In Gajara Vishnu Gosavi v. Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble
and others. 5 , at paragraphs- 9 to 13, it has been held that:

H ' t2009J 1o sec 654
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. M/S. PRIMELLA 485
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

"9. Be that as it may, three courts have recorded the A
concurrent find in gs of fact that partition had never been
given effect to in respect of the suit property. Therefore,
Housabai could transfer her share. But the question does
arise as to whether without partition by metes and bounds,
she could put her vendee Anj irabai in possession.
B
10. In Kartar Singh v. Hwjinder Singh ( 1990) 3 SCC
517 : AIR 1990 SC 854, this Court held that where the
shares are separable and a party enters into an agreement
even for sale of share belonging to other co-sharer, a suit
for specific performance was maintainable at least for the
share of the executor of the agreement, if not for the share
c
of other co-sharers. It was further observed:
"6. As regards the difficulty pointed out by the
High Court, namely, that the decree of specific
performance cannot be granted since the property
will have to be partitioned, we are of the view that D
this is not a legal difficulty. Whenever a share in the
property is sold, the vendee has a right to apply for
the partition of the property and get the share
demarcated."
11. In a recent judgment in Ramdas v. Sitabai and Ors. E
(2009) 7 SCC 444 : JT (2009) 8 SC 224 to which.one ofus
(Dr. B.S. Chauhan J.) was a party placing reliance upon
two earlier judgments of this Court in M V.S. Manikayala ·
Rao v. M Narasimhaswami and Ors. AIR 1966 SC 470;
and Sidhesl711'ar Mukherjee v. Bhubnesl1ll'ar Prasad F
Narain Singh and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 487 this Court came
to the conclusion that a purchaser of a coparcener's
undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled
to possession of what he had purchased. He has a right
only to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment
of his share in the suit property. G

12. There is another aspect of the matter. An agricultural
land belonging to the coparceners/co-sharers may be in their
joint possession. The sale of undivided share by one co-
sharer may be unlawful/ illegal as various statutes put an
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A embargo on fragmentation of holdings below the prescribed
extent.
13. Thus, in view of the above, the law emerges to the
effect that in a given case an undivided share of a
coparcener can be a subject matter of sale/transfer, but
B possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the
property is partitioned by metes and bounds, either by the
decree of a Court in a partition suit, or by settlement among
the co-sharers."
57. The vehement contention, advanced by learned Senior Counsel
c Shri Dhruv Mehta, based on Article2 l 77 of the Portuguese Civil Code,
1867 that there was an absolute bar for transfer of any portion of the
estate or a specific item of the estate, need not detain us both on account
of factual matrix and on law. As we have already noted hereinabove,
Defendants 1-8 had already given up on their right in the suit property by
not taking steps to avoid the distress sale at the instance of the Bank.
D Though, there are different translated versions of the provision, we may
extract Article 2177 as provided by Defendants 7 and 8 in their Appeal:
"It is not lawful to a co-owner, however, to dispose a specific
part of the thing held indivisibly, without the same being
allotted to him in partition; and a transfer of the right, which
E he has to the share belonging to him, may be restricted in
accordance with the law."
Suffice it to say, A11icle 2177 does not prohibit alienation of
undivided interest, which is in tune with the principle underlying Section
44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
F
58. The conduct of the Defendants 7 and 8 also needs to be
specifically commented on. Despite specifically getting reserved a liberty
to proceed further after the redemption of the property by the Plaintiff,
nothing was done by them. They also did not exercise their right of
preemption available under the Portuguese Law. Conspicuously, none
G of the defendants entered the witness box despite the voluminous and
clinching evidence tendered by the Plaintiff, obviously to avoid
inconvenient questions, particularly, based on PW-1/F extracted
hereinabove. In that view of the matter, it is also not necessary to deal
with the various other contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel
on both sides since they have no bearing on the ultimate conclusion.
H
SYSCON CONSULTANTS P. LTD. v. MIS. PRIMELLA 487
SANITARY PROD. P. LTD. AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

59. In our view, no substantial or grave injustice is caused to the A
Defendants: on the contrary, the justice of the case, on facts, is in favour
of the Plaintiff, and therefore, no interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution oflndia is required. Once, it is found that justice of the case
on facts does not require interference, this Court, even at the appellate
stage, is well within its discretion to stay its hands off, as held in
B
Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. v. Salam bin Mohammad".
60. Thus, viewed from any angle, justice was done to the Plaintiff
as per the decree granted to them by the High Court and no injustice is
caused to the Defendants, in particular, Defendant No. 9, who, with
open eyes, purchased litigation. As we have decided not to interfere
with the judgment of the High Court in favour of the Plaintiff, we also
c
dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal against the impugned judgment seeking the
en!ire.property.
61. We, however, find it difficult to agree with the reasoning of
the impugned judgment on many aspects, and hence, while dismissing all
the appeals, including the appeal ofM/s Primella Sanitary Products Private D
Limited, we leave the questions of law open. The Contempt Petition
(Civil) No. 89 of2016 also stands dismissed as we see no contemptuous
conduct on part of the alleged contemnors.
62. There shall be no order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.

"(1999) 2 sec 635