 of the today's session is specific performance of affirmative and negative agreement. Section 42 of the specific relief act 1963. And before we ask Mr. Shingal Muldi, and I will just check as to whether madam, as we have always been writing on the advice, kindly maintain social distancing, go for the vaccination and don't go outside the home until unless it's quite mandatory for ensuring that you are at your home and maintaining safety. We are doing the webinars so that you do not simplicity. Read judgments, but they all say that the impression created by the audio and visual is always carries much better impression. And then this endeavor in tie up with legal rights groups from Madras where Ali Lakshmi, ma'am, is the main leader of that thought process. Somehow I suppose she has not joined in. But be that as it may, we will take those questions and ultimately we will also share the answers which Mr. Muldi has been finding out to. Ma'am's phone is coming. The only difficulty is that she would not be able to log in now. We will take the questions. We have shared the questions. We are also sharing the questions on the Zoom so that those who are not the members of the WhatsApp group, they can read the questions which we are reading for the facilitation. Because as they say, the pronunciation from state to state also varies. And therefore, in some case, I'm not saying that it could happen that the way we put the question or the answer, it comes in a different way than what it is reported to be. But our effort would be to speak in such a manner that you would be able to understand. And we all know that Mr. Muldi would be hammering the point straight, which is clear. The first question is Krishnan and Lakshmi are spouses. They are blessed with two sons, Shana Mogan and Kanan. Krishnan was retired, South Railway employee. He had purchased house property in Thillai Nagar from out of his funds. It is a self-acquired property. A family feud was propped up between Kanan and his families. Eventually Kanan executed a registered release deed in favor of Krishnan. After receiving a sum of rupees one lakh, Krishnan, while he was in sound disposing executed a registered will in favor of his wife Lakshmi for her life and ultimately in favor of his one son. Shana Mogan absolutely in respect of the house property situated in Thillai Nagar. Krishnan has also transferred a sum of at least 25 lakhs deposited by him in the State Bank of India. Thillai Nagar branch in favor of his wife Lakshmi after his demise. Data Krishnan died and on his death a force at free and last testament came into force. Mr. Shana Mogan wanted to sell the property at Thillai Nagar and the question is mother Lakshmi. To relinquish her life interest created in the will created by Krishnan accordingly. Krishnan executed a registered release deed relinquishing her life interest in favor of her son Shana Mogan stating that she had no objection to sell the suit property in Shana Mogan. There after Shana Mogan sold the house property at Thillai Nagar in favor of Moldi for a valuable consideration. He said registered sales was challenged by Kanan and he filed the suit to set aside the registered sale deed executed by Shana Mogan in favor of Moldi. In the written statement filed by Shana Mogan and Moldi they contended that the Kanan has no local standard to institute debaubness and further contended that there is no legal impediment to sell the suit property after the life state holder relinquished her life interest in the suit property. So before we take the question I will ask you because some students are also have joined this provision. We are sharing the YouTube link. So first explain like we have done since there are some youngsters also in this profession and we are happy that they are on the profile. What is the meaning of testament and then what will be the meaning of testament? First explain the testament and legal impediment. Two first two expressions people to understand for a common man. Yes sir. Are you asking the question to me? Yeah I am saying for common man kindly explain what is common. Testament is a will executed by a living person regarding the dispossession of his property after his demise. So it is a legacy that is his intention to back up the property. Will is defined under section two of the Indian Succession Act. And next word we have used is legal impediment. What do you mean by legal impediment and then we will take the question. Legal impediment of? What do you mean by legal impediment? Meaning of legal impediment. Legal impediment of what? Meaning meaning simplicity meaning of legal impediment. Legal impediment means suppose one executed a will the validity of the will and its enforceability it must be in consonance with the Indian Succession Act. Indian Succession Act. In the first in the instant case will was executed in favour of his wife for her life estate that is he can enjoy the property without any power of alienation and he backward the property absolutely in favour of his son. This is the intention of the executing test data. Now the point is once life estate is given whether the life estate colder can relinquish his right over the property. Is there any legal impediment to relinquish the life interest? Am I audible? Yeah now whether the life interest is transferable under the transfer of property act? Yes I will answer after my decision is over whether the life interest can be transferred whether life interest can be assigned whether life interest can be relinquished. I will answer with reference to the transfer of property act under the reported judgments. So this proposition we have read it sir can you explain in the first context this question whether the life interest of is transferable under the transfer of property act how do you go about it? Transfer of property act. No I have read the question and the issues would you explain the issues right now? I have read that question and should I read the issue so that you can answer it accordingly? Yes I have already given the issues and I will answer all the issues one by one with reference to the transfer of property act sections and the celebrated judgments of our High Court and Supreme Court. No I have read the question now we can take the issues you can explain the issues as such. Yep now how do you intend to go you are explaining the section? Yes but I will take my question and answer first okay. This is for the participants those who are not aware of the questions. The question is very simple. Husband executed a will in favour of his wife that he shall enjoy the property till get there till get there and thereafter he backward the property absolutely in favour of his son with the power of alienation. So in the will one thing is very clear there is a life interest is created in favour of the wife and the absolute interest in favour of the son. Now in the instant case the mother who is the life estate holder relinquished his life interest over the property by way of executing your registered release deed in favour of his son. So the only bar imposed in the will is that the life interest holder has to enjoy the property only after the death of the life interest holder the beneficiary can enjoy the property absolutely. In as much as the life interest holder herself executed a registered relinquishment deed or release deed relinquishing his life interest over the property is there any legal impediment to relinquish the same. Now answer is section 6 h of the transfer of property act. Section 6 h, we are all aware transfer of property act deals with the transfer of property between inter vivas what can be transferred and what cannot be. Section 6 h states no transfer can be made in so far as it is opposed to the nature of the interest already created. So when interest is created over the property and subsequent transfer is opposed to the nature of the interest created no transfer can be made. So as per the plain meaning of section 2 h, 6 h of the transfer of property act the life interest cannot be transferred number one. Number two according to section 8 of the transfer of property act no transfer can be operated unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied. So in the instant case the will specifically states that the life estate holder has to enjoy the property till the death only after her demise the son will get the property absolutely. So there is no different intention either expressed or by necessary implication is implied. So even according to section 8 of the transfer of property act the life estate holder cannot transfer his life estate in favor of anyone including his son. Then third point is section 95 of the Indian succession act. Section 95 of the Indian succession acts says the legality that is the beneficiary is entitled to the whole interest of the estate or when the backquest is without words of any limitation. So in the absence of any conditions and in the absence of limitation debarring the legality from enjoying the property then only the legality will get the whole interest. So according to section 6 h and 8 of the transfer of property act and section 95 of the Indian succession act the life estate holder the life cannot surrender her interest in the property so as to accelerate its WSHA. So here the intention of the testator will play a very vital role. So the life estate holder cannot really use cannot release cannot surrender her life interest right over the property and the another point is in am I audible because sir in the instant case I have also pointed out the executed Christian has already deposited a sum of rupees 25 lakhs to be enjoyed by his wife Lakshmi. In some of the judgments if any life interest is created in favor of the wife it is for the purpose of maintenance. So the life interest will become absolute interest and the wife is entitled to sell the property here that is not the case because a separate provision has already been made for the to the wife for her maintenance. So here the life interest cannot be rivaled into absolute estate. So the life interest cannot be surrendered cannot be transferred and cannot be relinquished. This is the very important point. So shall we go to the next question. Mr. Srinivasan owned a residential property at Adhyar Chinnai. His wife Ratha pre-deceased him. Srinivasan had not been blessed with any child. Srinivasan has taken care by his book Poonamal and Driver Satya Murti. Srinivasan while he was in a sound disposing state of mind executed a registered will jointly in favor of Poonamal and Satya Murti that his residential property shall be enjoyed by them jointly after his demise. Thereafter Poonamal pre-deceased Srinivas leaving behind her her only son Rajendra. Like a Srinivasan died Rajendra demanded half share in the residential property of the Srinivasan. Against Satya Murti as per will created in favor of his mother and Satya Murti jointly. Satya Murti refused to accede to the claim of Rajendra. Rajendra filed a suit for partition of his undivided half share in property left by deceased Srinivasan. Satya Murti has filed a written statement contending that he being the survivor alone is entitled for the entire share left by the deceased Srinivasan since Poonamal was not alive on the date of death. Now kindly take the issues. Yes. The issue is whether the legacy is lapsed if one of the two joint legacies died before the test data. Before the test data. Somebody is working citations. We will drop. We will be dropping the. Yes. For the citations here 1987 Delhi page 323 for the question number one. Here 1987 Delhi. So we will drop it in the zoom box. So the second problem. It is the question is very simple. Srinivasan executed a registered will in favor of his cook and driver because he has no issues and his wife already pre-deceased to him. During the lifetime of the Srinivasan the one of the beneficiary that is namely the cook Poonamal died. Poonamal died. Whether the point is on the day on the date of death of death of death of Poonamal whether they will be executed by Srinivasan is lapsed or not is lapsed or not. The answer is section 106 of the Indian succession which says if anyone of the joint legacies they will be executed in favor of two beneficiaries they are known as joint legacies. If anyone of the joint legacies die before the test or the legacy will not lapse the legacy will not lapse the other surviving legacies takes the whole. So the cook died during the lifetime of the executing is one of the joint legacies under the later the executing Srinivasan died. So after the death of Srinivasan the surviving legacy is his driver Satyamuti. Satyamuti is entitled to get the entire property so the suit filed by the son of cook Rajendra for partition is not maintainable in view of the clearing in view of the section 106 of the Indian succession which says the death of one of the joint legacies will not is in the legacy is not lapsed on the death of the one of the joint legacies. The surviving legacies is entitled to get the whole. So we can go to the third problem. Srinivasan and Latha as pauses Ram and Raghav are their sons. Srinivasan's house property at Adhyar Chennai is a self-acquired property Srinivasan executed a registered will in favor of his will. Latha for her life without any power of alienation and big with his house property at Adhyar jointly in favor of his son Ram and Raghav. Thereafter Latha pre-deceased Srinivasan. Later Ram also pre-deceased Srinivasan leaving behind him his only son Bharat. Bharat claimed his undivided of share in the property left by the deceased Srinivasan but Raghav refused the claim of Bharat. A suit had been filed by Bharat against Raghav for partition of his undivided share in the suit property. Raghav has filed written statement stating that the will has not been bequeathed in favor of Bharat. It is only bequeathed jointly in his favor and his brother Ram as Ram was not alive on the date of death of Srinivasan. The entire property devolved upon the survivor as such he claimed the entire interest in the suit property and trade for dismissal of the suit. So this is similar to the second question. Well after hearing my lecture you can easily come to a conclusion here also one of the joint legacy died so the surviving legality is entitled to get the entire property that is not so. If the will is executed in favor of the lineal descendants that is his legal cast then section 106 will not apply. As per section 109 if the will if the will is executed in favor of the lineal descendants even after the death of auntie death of the one of the joint legality during the lifetime of the testator and after the death of the testator the legal has of the deceased joint legality is entitled to share the property with the surviving legality. So this is section 109 of the Indian succession act. So section 109 of Indian succession act is an exception to section 106. So one thing is very clear if the will is in respect of legal has there is no question of survivorship entitled to get the entire property. So he must enjoy the property along with the legal gas of the deceased legality. If the will is in respect of other than the lineal descendants then the survivor is entitled to get the property after the death of the one of the legal legality joint legality. We will go to the fourth question. Hemlata entered into a sale agreement with Harita in respect of her vacant plot measuring to an extent of 24th 100 square feet for 15 lakhs. The sale agreement is dated 11 2019 on the date of execution of said sale agreement. Harita paid a sum of rupees 5 lakhs as advance and agreed to pay balance sale price of 5 lakhs on or before 30th of June 2019. During the currency of the said agreement one Mr. Jeev Kumar wanted to buy the said property and offered Hemlata sum of rupees 50 lakhs. Delighted by this Hemlata made an attempt to sell the property in favor of Jeev Kumar during the month March 2019. Erged by this Harita has filed a suit for permanent injection before district months report which typically on 15 March 2019 against Hemlata for permanent injection restraining Hemlata from the nation and encumbering the suit property in favor of third party as so long as an agreement subsist. She has also filed an application under order two rule three seeking leave of the court to file a suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 11 2019 within the stipulated period that is on or before 30th of June 2019. The district months of court were pleased to allow the said application and granted leave in favor of Harita to sue for specific performance of sale agreement. Subsequently Hemlata has filed her statement and the core point of substance raised by her is that the district months have had no jurisdiction to grant leave in favor of Harita to sue specific performance of sale agreement 11 2019 before district court which has got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Harita's suit for specific performance. The execution under the receipt of advance amount and her attempted to sell execution the receipt of advance amount and their attempted sale are not denied. Now Hemlata is the vendor Harita is the purchase they entered into sale agreement to purchase the property in the sale agreement he has paid some amount as advance and agreed to pay the pay the balance sale price balance sale price within a period of six months on or before 36 2019 the sale agreement is dated 11 2019 so the Harita has got right to pay the balance amount within a period of six months. During the currency of the sale agreement Hemlata Hemlata is attempted to sell the property in favor of some x maybe in favor of Jeevakumar because Hemlata is delighted by the fancy offer given by Jeevakumar he is intending to purchase the property for 50 lakhs than the 15 lakhs offered by Harita. So during the currency of the sale agreement attempt was made attempt attempt was made to sell the property so immediately Harita filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Hemlata from alienating or encumbering the property during the currency of the sale agreement restricted prior has been sought for by via filing a suit in that suit he has also filed an application under order 2 rule 3 seeking leave of the court to file her comprehensive suit for specific performance before the district court which has got exclusive jurisdiction to entertain her suit for specific performance leave was granted by the district that is the lowest care of judiciary permitting Harita to institute a suit for specific performance before the district court. Now Hemlata entered appearance filed a statement and he has not denied the execution of the sale agreement and he has not denied she has not denied the receipt of advance amount and she has not denied her attempt to sell the property what was in the what was raised in the written statement than the district must see has no jurisdiction to grant leave in favor of Harita to institute a suit before this period court that is the only contention raised by Hemlata. Now whether the inferior namely the lower division civil judge can is entitled to grant permission in favor of the Harita plaintiff to institute her comprehensive suit for specific performance before the superior court the answer is lying under order 2 rule 2 subclass 1 of CPC order 2 rule 2 subclass 1 of CPC which contemplates the plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court within the word employees within the jurisdiction of any court it may be the superior court or coordinate court or competent in the court having competent jurisdiction it doesn't matter so the inferior court namely the constituency is entitled to grant permission to file a suit for specific performance at a later point of time before the superior court here one may ask sir without filing a suit for specific performance whether your mere suit for injunction simplicity is maintenance my answer is here during the currency of the lease sale agreement Harita has got time for six months to pay the balance sale price no doubt the purchaser must be ready and willing to purchase the property from the date of execution of the sale agreement there is no doubt about it but here there is an attempt to sell the property during the currency of the sale agreement so that Harita to file a suit for injunction and his failure is restricted during the currency of period of sale agreement that is six months within the period of six months there cannot be any alienation the suit is maintainable but without getting any permission and order 2 rule 3 she cannot institute a suit for specific performance so cautiously he has filed an application he has took out an application under order 2 rule 3 and got permission from the constituency to file a suit for specific performance before the superior court next question last question Raja Gopal borrowed a sum of rupees 10 lakhs from Govinda Swami and executed a promissory note dated 112 from 17 in favor of in his favor for peace 10 lakhs on 15 12 2019 Raja Gopal died leaving behind him his wife Parvati and son Vijay Lakshman a Vigyan but the death of Raja Gopal is not known to Govinda Swami and he filed a suit for recovery for pro note amounting to peace 10 lakhs on the last date of expiry of the screen years that is on 31st of December 2019 against Raja Gopal the summon issued to Raja Gopal was returned with the endorsement that Raja Gopal has died on 15 12 2019 thereafter Govinda Swami filed an application to impede his legal hears of deceased Raja Gopal on 10 10 2010 month 10th of January 2020 and the same was allowed on 15th of February 2020 on the ground that Govind Swami by mistake failed to impede the legal hears in good faith when he instituted the suit in the written statement filed by Parvati and Vijay and they contended that the suit against them is deemed to be instituted on 15th of February 2020 the date on which impeding has been petition has been for the law therefore the suit against them has become barred by limitation and they are prayed for dismissal of the suit you will have to unmute yourself unmute yourself okay the issue involved is in this case the last date for filing the suit expired on 31 12 2019 31 12 2019 and the borrower Govinda Swami died on 15 12 2019 so without knowing the death of the borrower Govinda Swami the Raja Gopal plaintive filed the suit on the promissory note against the deceased person the summon sent to the defendant Govinda Swami returned with an endorsement Govinda Swami died on 15 12 2019 so after noticing the same the plaintive filed an application to impede the legal hears of the deceased defendant Govinda Swami the legal hears are his wife Parvati and the son of Vijay his application was allowed on 15 to 2020 on 15 to 2020 the period of limitation to file the suit on promissory notice expired in the date the date of expiry is 31 12 2019 whereas the legal hears of the deceased defendant was made as parties on 15 to 2020 when they took the plea on the date of their impeachment the the suit is barred by limitation barred by a flux of time so the suit is not maintained that is their contention here we have to look into section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act under section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act if any person is employed either as the plaintive or defendant the suit shall be instituted when the plaintive or defendant was ordered to be implanted so so far as the newly implanted parties are concerned they are deemed to be implanted only the date on which the order was passed for their impeachment so so far as the impeachment of the Parvati and Vijay are concerned they are deemed to be so far as the suit is so far as Parvati and Vijay are concerned the suit is deemed to be instituted on 15 to 2020 the date on which order was passed to implicate them as a party so on the date absolutely the suit is barred by limitation but the Pravishottu section 21 says if the plaintive in good fight the plaintive in good fight or mistake failed to implicate the legal case and subsequently application was filed and the order to be implanted then their date of they are deemed to be instituted from the date of the Arvishottu section 21 citations 1993 for a cc page 41 so without knowing the death of the defendant the suit has been filed it was it is a sheer mistake and it was made in good fight so subsequently application has taken out to implicate the lots of the deceased Govindasamy they were implanted and since the mistake is bona fide and made in good fight so far as the newly implanted parties are concerned they are deemed to be implanted from the date of the suit from the date on which the suit is instituted 1993 for a cc page 41 but one thing you must make clear if where your party is implanted not because of the legal case of the deceased defendant but on the ground of assignment or by devolution of any interest during the pendency of the suit section 21 1 have no application section 21 1 of the limitation act have no application this is because suppose your suit has been filed your suit has been filed for a declaration and injunction during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died after executing a will in favor of his son so the son by operation of law he becomes one of the property so he is entitled to proceed with the case so here the when the when he was implanted doesn't matter because section 21 has no application and the input is made on account of devolution of any interest or by way of assignment if any assignment is made during the pendency of the suit the assignee is entitled to be implanted and he is entitled to proceed with the case so these are all answers to the five questions I hope the questions are very interesting and it will enrich your knowledge in the civil law because the somebody is asking some questions and posting in the chat box I will answer it after the my session is over and if somebody is asking my phone number and you can you can share my phone a mobile number that's no problem okay no issues yes now we can take things forward so the basic sections which you have explained now we can take those sections and you can explain for the facilitation in a simple language hello yeah moly sir now you would like to take the question in what format you want you want the questions to be taken or you can define the certain section the question I will take the question after after my session is over now let me proceed with the topic yes the enforcement of affirmative and negative parts of agreement may proceed sir yeah yeah perfect yes present topic is encircled on section part two of the specifically fact only one section and so the topic is very simple enforcement of positive and negative part of the argument you are all aware specifically fact is by is based on the well-known maxim he be just he be remedium remedy for the every right in finished and the specifically fact is not violating article 300 a of the constitution of india