Specific Relief Act, 1963

— S. 10 — Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of immovable property — Maintainability — Competence of plaintiff to bring the suit — Agreement was with plaintiff's brother for sale of the property to him — Plaintiff's brother died leaving behind him his wife, three sisters and plaintiff-respondent as his legal heirs — Thereafter, plaintiff filed the suit which was decreed by trial court — But in view of uncontroverted statement of defendant that widow of plaintiff's deceased brother had not remarried and was staying in another village along with her uncle, first appellate court held that alleged remarriage of the widow was not established and she being Class I legal heir of the deceased in terms of Schedule referred to in S. 8 of Hindu Succession Act, plaintiff was incompetent to bring the suit — Accordingly, first appellate court allowed the appeal — In second appeal, High Court erroneously proceeded on the basis as if it was the accepted position that the widow had remarried and it also found that two of the three sisters had relinquished their shares in favour of plaintiff, and accordingly it held that plaintiff was competent to file the suit — High Court further held that execution of the agreement was admitted by defendant — Judgment and decree of first appellate court was therefore set aside and that of trial court restored by High Court — But factual position as regards alleged remarriage of the widow being clearly contrary to what was held by High Court, held, its judgment cannot be sustained on that score alone — Moreover, first appellate court on analysis of facts having indicated reasons as to how it found the agreement to be not genuine, High Court's abrupt reasoning that defendant had accepted execution of the agreement is indefensible — However, in view of the conclusion that plaintiff-respondent was not competent to file the suit, it is not necessary to deal with the other question about genuineness of the document, (2006) 6 SCC 663