1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.444 OF 2009 Jayant Bhausaheb Kulkarni )..Appellant Vs. Dhondiram Dattatray Kulkarni & Ors. )..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. M. S. Lagu for the appellant. ­­­­ Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 17th February, 2010 PC 1 This is a Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiff against concurrent findings of the two lower Courts dismissing his suit for specific performance of an agreement executed by one Malati in his favour on 30.7.2003. It is not in dispute that the suit property was originally belonged to the husband of Malati. The said husband Dattatray Kulkarni expired in the year 2000. According to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/­ has been given prior to the death of Dattatray and further amount of Rs.35,000/­ has been given for medical treatment after the death of Dattatray. The case of the plaintiff was that other heirs of Dattatray being defendant nos.2 to 4 were ready and willing to execute a sale deed in his favour but defendant no.1 was not willing. It has been rightly held that Malati being the mother of defendant no.1 had no powers to transfer the rights of defendant no.1 as she was not the karta of the family. At the highest, she could transfer her own share. It is also correctly being observed that the heirs of Dattatray who wanted to transfer their own 2 shares were at liberty to do so. In my view, no fault can be found with the findings of the Court that the agreement cannot be binding as against one of the sons who was resisting execution of the agreement. In this view of the matter, there is no substantial question of law raised in this appeal. Second Appeal stands dismissed. It is however, made clear that this will not preclude other heirs of Dattatray from transferring their shares in favour of the plaintiff if they so desire. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3