1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.739 OF 2005. Prakashchand Suganlal Runwal ... Appellant. Versus ... Mr.S.I.Nandode, advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.H.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of contract, pursuant to the agreement of sale executed by the Respondent No.1. The trial Court partly decreed the suit. It refused the relief of 2 specific performance and granted interest. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in Second Appeal before this Court. 2. Mr.Nandode, learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the Courts had come to the conclusion that the agreement was executed and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then there was no impediment for the Court to grant the relief of specific performance. He further contended that it is proved that the Respondent No.1 had entered into the agreement as a Karta of Joint family. In such circumstances, when all the ingredients necessary for decreeing the suit for specific performance was fulfilled, the Courts committed an error in not granting the relief of Specific Performance. 3. Per contra, Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Courts 3 have properly exercised their discretion in negativing the claim of specific performance inasmuch as the agreement by Respondent No.1 was without any legal necessity and even it has come on record that when defendant No.1 had been to the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed, the plaintiff refused saying that all other persons also should consent for the same. As such the plaintiff can not be said to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. 5. The agreement of sale does not spell any legal necessity. The Karta of the family has got an authority to deal with the joint family property only in case of a legal necessity. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff could not prove the factum of legal necessity. As such the Respondent No.1 without any legal necessity could not have executed the agreement of sale of a joint family property so 4 as to bind the other sharers. It has also been observed by the appellate Court in para 33 of its judgment that when the defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in respect of his share. The plaintiff refused and asked him to come with his two brothers. This shows that the plaintiff was not ready to purchase the share of defendant No.1 alone but was insisting for the purchase of the total suit property, when it is a matter of record that the sale was not for any legal necessity then the said agreement by defendant No.1 as a Karta would not be enforceable. 6. In light of the above, no error can be found in the judgments of the Courts below. As such the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa739.05 5