Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.19(b) – General Clauses Act – s.3(22) – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.2(11) – “good faith” – Oral agreement for sale of the suit property between plaintiff and defendant (owner of the property) – However, despite the said agreement, the defendant transferred the suit property in favour of the appellants-subsequent purchasers – In Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff, High Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale holding that the appellants could not be said to be bona fide purchasers u/s.19(b) – Correctness:
Held: Correct – Section 19 (b) of the Act, 1963 is an exception from the general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to prove that he purchased the property in good faith and also bona fide purchaser for value – For an act to have been done in good faith it must have been done with due care and attention and there should not be any negligence or dishonesty – Each aspect is a complement to the other and not an exclusion of the other – The definition of the Penal Code, 1860 emphasises due care and attention whereas General Clauses Act emphasises honesty – High Court committed no error in passing the impugned Judgment. [Paras 12, 15, 20]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
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.