Case Brief (Rewritten): M.V. Shankar Bhat v. Claude Pinto

Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 86

Name of parties:

Appellants: M.V. Shankar Bhat & Another (Advocate/Purchaser)

Respondent: Claude Pinto (D) by LRS & Others (Executor)

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha and Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ

Date Of Appeal: 1998

Date Of Judgement: Fri Feb 14 2003

Facts of Case

The testator (person who made the Will) left a Will appointing a sole executor to sell the property and divide the sale proceeds into four equal shares according to the Will’s conditions. However, another clause in the Will allowed the heirs to partition the property instead of selling it, with the executor’s consent and the help of two independent arbitrators to divide it fairly. After the testator’s death, the Will was probated (legally validated by the court), but the executor did not immediately sell the property. The appellant, an advocate, offered to buy it, and both parties signed a sale agreement stating that the buyer (appellant) would pay the agreed amount. However, the defendant/respondent failed to complete the sale by executing the necessary legal deeds of sale. As a result, the appellant filed a specific performance suit (a legal action to enforce the contract), which the trial court ruled in his favour. However, the High Court later reversed this decision on appeal by the defendant.

Issues Before Court

• Whether the agreement to sell dated 4-12-1979 executed by the first defendant subject to ratification of the terms and conditions contained therein by the other co-heirs is a concluded contract ?

Judgement

The Will allowed the executor to divide the property among the legatees (beneficiaries), but it also gave them the option to partition it, in that case the executor is to consent. The court noted that the appellant, being an advocate who had insight into the matters of the Will, and thus had an upper hand in the negotiations and even created fear in the respondent’s mind about losing the property. The court ruled that since the agreement required ratification (approval) by others, it was not a concluded contract but a condition precedent, making agreement for sale unenforceable in law. However, the court also clarified that an executor has the absolute right to transfer the property.

Key Takeaways