Shyam Kumar Inani vs Vinod Agrawal & Ors.

Specific Relief – Validity – Proof of Execution by Power of Attorney Holder – The Power of Attorney holder, M.K. Maheshwari, had personal involvement in the transaction, which was corroborated by an attesting witness and handwriting expert – The High Court made misplaced adverse inference from non-examination of other plaintiffs: Held: Valid execution established – The Court relied on Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512 to affirm that a Power of Attorney holder with personal knowledge may validly depose – The Court distinguished the decision in Vidyadhar Vishnupant Ratnaparkhi v. Manikrao Babarao Deshmukh, (1999)

3 SCC 573, to argue adverse inference for non-examination of plaintiffs, on facts as the Power of Attorney holder had firsthand knowledge and testified credibly – The Supreme Court distinguished Janki Vashdeo v. IndusInd Bank, (2005) 2 SCC 217 and Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 981, cited to challenge validity of POA evidence, on the ground that POA holder in this case had direct knowledge and personal involvement. [Paras 25–29, 34.4- 34.5 35.2]

Limitation – Article 54 – Second part applicable – No fixed time for performance – Cause of action arose upon refusal – The agreement did not fix a time for registration – After Sushila Devi’s death, mutation was denied in 1994 – Suit filed in 1995 was within limitation:

Held: Suit not time-barred – The second part of Article 54 applied – Section 54 prescribes that when no date is fixed for performance, the limitation period begins when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused – The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the limitation began immediately upon execution or death of the executant – The agreement was consistently acted upon and the plaintiffs had performed their part by paying full consideration and remaining in possession. [Para 30]

Pardanashin Status – No pleading or proof – Age/illiteracy – No seclusion – Voluntary execution – High Court assuming Sushila Devi to be a pardanashin lady, applied higher evidentiary threshold to the Agreement to Sell:

Held: Sushila Devi not entitled to pardanashin protection – Presumption of undue influence not applicable – Burden of proof not discharged by defendants – The Supreme Court found no pleading or credible evidence to support such status – It distinguished Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, AIR 1963 SC 1203, relied on by respondents to invoke stricter scrutiny in transactions involving pardanashin women, on facts, as Sushila Devi’s status was not analogous due to the absence of seclusion or concealment – It also distinguished Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity, (2004) 9 SCC 468 relied on to suggest incapacity due age and infirmity, on facts – Unlike the 100-year-old bedridden woman in that case, Sushila Devi was active and voluntarily executed the agreement. [Paras 34.2–34.3]

Possession and Title – Possession since 1990 – Title deeds handed over – Part performance under Section 53A TPA – Evidence supported by documents and conduct – The plaintiffs had been in settled possession of the suit land since 1990, following execution of the Agreement to Sell – They produced documentary proof including the original sale deed, Rin Pustika, and land revenue receipts have paid land revenue, indicating de facto and de jure control – The defendants failed to rebut the evidence of possession and title handover – It also distinguished Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, (2008) 4 SCC 530, cited to argue execution defects, as the plaintiffs were in possession, stamp duty and evidentiary support were both satisfied in present case: Held: Plaintiffs' continuous possession supported by documentary evidence established part performance – The Court found that possession pursuant to a lawful agreement, coupled with part payment and willingness to perform, attracted protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. [Paras 31–32, 34.1, 34.6-34.8]

Readiness and Willingness – Full consideration paid – Continuous willingness – Delay attributable to defendants – The plaintiffs paid the full consideration under the Agreement to Sell at the outset and remained ready and willing to execute the formal sale deed – The delay was due to the inaction of defendants – The plaintiffs’ consistent conduct and attempts to seek mutation and performance were evident: Held: Plaintiffs complied with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. [Paras 20.4, 21.4]

Lis Pendens – Section 52 TPA – Sale during pendency – Violation of injunction – Purchasers not bona fide – Doctrine to prevent frustration of judicial process – On 18.01.2001, while the suit for specific performance was pending and after an injunction was granted on 04.12.2000, the defendants executed four sale deeds in favour of third parties:

Held: Sale deeds executed during pendency and in violation of injunction were void – Doctrine of lis pendens squarely applied – Purchasers could not claim protection under bona fide doctrine due to notice of pending suit and injunction – The Court distinguished Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397 and Yogesh Goel v. Govind Narayan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 169, which were cited by the defendants to support protection of pendente lite purchasers – In those cases, the purchasers had either no notice or the dispute lacked injunction orders at the time of sale – In contrast, here the purchasers had clear notice of the pending suit and express injunctive restraint. [Paras 33, 34.6-34.8]

No enforceability bar due to vagueness – Boundaries identifiable – Undervaluation not conclusive of mala fides – The defendants also contended that the Agreement to Sell was vague and lacked specific demarcation of boundaries, and that the consideration was below market rate: Held: Agreement not invalid for lack of precise boundaries or lowerthan-market consideration – No mala fides established – The Court clarified that minor imprecision in boundary description does not affect enforceability where the property can otherwise be identified with certainty – Further, undervaluation alone does not establish fraud or invalidate the contract when possession, consideration, and intention to perform are established. [Paras 34.6]