Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.19(b) – A previous suit filed by respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale of land was decreed and pursuant thereto, execution proceedings were commenced – Surveyor was appointed by executing court to demarcate 50 acres of land – Executing court executed sale deed – Respondent filed suit against appellant praying for declaration of title and delivery in her favour to the extent of 0.08 cents of the land on the ground that the respondent took possession of 50 acres by way of execution proceedings and that the appellant had trespassed over 0.08 cents of the same – Respondent did not appear in witness box and manager who appeared on behalf of respondent deposed that he was not authorised by respondent to conduct the case – The manager deposed that he was aware of the sale of the suit land in favour of third person – Subsequent purchaser was not impleaded – Suit was dismissed by trial court and first appellate court – High Court held that courts below did not appreciate the evidence particularly with respect to the execution proceedings – On appeal, held: Respondent was fully aware of the prior registered transaction in respect of the same property originally in favour of ‘N’ – This was as per the deposition of her manager – In such a scenario, it was not possible to accept that a decree could have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance – The second vital aspect was that the Respondent did not even step into the witness box to depose to the facts – It was the manager who stepped into the witness box that too without producing any proper authorisation – What he deposed in a way ran contrary to the interest of the Respondent as it was accepted that there was knowledge of the transaction with respect to the same land between third parties and yet the Respondent chose not to implead the purchasers as parties to the suit – Thus, the endeavour was to obtain a decree at the back of the real owners and that is the reason, at least, in the execution proceedings that the original vendor did not even come forward and the sale deed had to be executed through the process of the Court – The case of ‘N’ and the subsequent purchasers including appellant fell within the exception set out in s.19(b) being transferees who had paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract – High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – If the question of law is not framed at the stage of admission, it should be framed at least before deciding the case.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The question of law ought to have been framed under section 100 of CPC. Even if the question of law had not been framed at the stage of admission, at least before deciding the case the said question of law ought to have been framed. [Para 22][331-D-E]
Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 562 : [2018] 4 SCC 562; Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573 : [1999] 1 SCR 1168 – relied on.
Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010)
10 SCC 512 : [2010] 12 SCR 515; Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 448 : [2007] 2 SCR 980 – referred to.
2. The Respondent was fully aware of the prior registered transaction in respect of the same property originally in favour of Niraja Devi. This is as per the deposition of her manager. In such a scenario it is not possible to accept that a decree could have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance. The second vital aspect insofar as the case of the Respondent is concerned is that the Respondent did not even step into the witness box to depose to the facts. It is the manager who stepped into the witness box that too without producing any proper authorisation. What he deposed in a way ran contrary to the interest of the Respondent as it was accepted that there was knowledge of the transaction with respect to the same land between third parties and yet the Respondent chose not to implead the purchasers as parties to the suit. Thus, the endeavour was to obtain a decree at the back of the real owners and that is the reason, at least, in the execution proceedings that the original vendor did not even come forward and the sale deed had to be executed through the process of the Court. The case of Niraja Devi and the subsequent purchasers including the Appellant would fall within the exception set out in Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, being transferees who had paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. [Paras 24, 25 and 26][332-C-G; 333-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.