Case: Baikunthi Devi and Others Vs. Mahendra Nath and Another

3. In the present case, the facts are brief and the law is clear. One Jeewa Ram, who had a half share in a tract of land Ac.0 in extent with a small house thereon, had entered into an agreement to sell his share of a consideration of Rs. 3000 to respondent 1. This agreement dated June 16, 1960 was sought to be enforced by a suit for specific performance although by that time Jeewa Ram had passed away and his daughter, the present appellant 1 became his legal representative. The demand for specific performance was made by thet respondent who, incidentally happens to be the nephew of the late Jeewa Ram. The suit itself was filed after the consolidation proceedings had come to a close. It so happened that as a result of the consolidation proceedings precisely the same land which was the subject matter of the agreement to sell, less a tiny bit of Ac., was included in the chak allotted to Jeewa Ram and the first respondent.

Court's reasoning:
6. Even so, having regard to the close relationship between the parties and the length and expense of the litigation, we suggested to counsel on both sides that the first respondent may as well pay ex gratia a sum of Rs. 2000 over and above the consideration of Rs. 3000. Even independently of this, the there is no material before us to hold that there is any prejudice sustained by appellant 2 onwards who are minors. We are also satisfied, prima facie, that the agreement which covers a half share of Jeewa Ram is to the benefit of the minors. It is a fortiori a case of benefit to the minors when as a result of this litigation, although on Courts suggestion, an additional sum of Rs. 2000 is being paid to the appellants. Both sides accept the decree with the modification that an extra sum of Rs. 2000 will be paid within six months from today. for the appellants agrees that the decree with the present modification, is in the interests of the minors and further that suit 7 of 1976 in the Court of the Munsif, Shikohabad filed by some of the appellants to set aside the agreement will be withdrawn. Such a step of withdrawal of that litigation will itself be in the interests of the minors so that wasteful expenditure on a suit with little or no chance can be saved.