Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
These Second Appeals arise from a challenge to the Judgment and Decree dated 15 January 2022 passed by the District Judge-2, Thane in Regular Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2012, which allowed the first appeal and set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 454 of 1994. The first Appellate Court decreed specific performance of an unregistered Agreement for Sale dated 11 January 1988, by which Defendant Nos. 1 to 9, as original owners of agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 2 and Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 6 at village Ovale, Thane, agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 6,41,850/-. The Appellate Court directed deposit of the balance consideration and execution of a Conveyance Deed, along with a permanent injunction restraining alienation of the suit lands.
The appeals involve complex questions of third-party purchaser rights, as M/s. Everest Land Developers purchased Survey No. 62 Hissa No. 6 from the original vendors in May 2009 after the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit, and subsequently M/s. Harmony Lifestyle Structures Private Limited purchased the same land from Everest in August 2012 during the pendency of the first appeal, without being impleaded as a party before either the Trial Court or the first Appellate Court. Harmony was subsequently granted leave by the High Court to file Second Appeal No. 353 of 2022.
The central legal issues involve the enforceability of an unregistered agreement for sale of agricultural land, the applicability of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948, the rights of subsequent purchasers with notice of pending litigation, and the propriety of granting specific performance in favour of the original Plaintiff-vendee against original vendors and third-party purchasers.
Catchwords:
specific performance · agreement for sale · agricultural land · unregistered agreement · third-party purchaser · lis pendens · Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act · subsequent purchaser · permanent injunction · second appeal · Bombay High Court
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
