whether the purchase by respondent no.2 was bona fide or not.
Apex court held that
the purchase by respondent no.2 was completely bona fide . The agreement dated
31.07.1998 was an unregistered one and the plaintiff himself had not initiated any action for more than five years. There is nothing on record to indicate that any public notice was given or that defendant no.2 was aware of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The price paid by the defendant no.2
in respect of the extent of 8 Kanals can also not be said to be inadequate or in any way at a lesser rate. The record also discloses that defendant no.2 was a mortgagee in whose favour a registered deed was executed by defendant no.1. All these facets taken together completely prove that defendant no.2 was a bona fide
purchaser for value and, as such, the assessment made by the Appellate Court was absolutely correct and justified.
The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7010 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13528/2019
SATBIR Appellant
VERSUS
INDER SINGH & ANR. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.RBT-697 of 2003
seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 31.07.1998 by
which the first defendant (respondent no.2 herein) had agreed to
transfer 22 Kanals 17 Marlas of land to the appellant. Under the
agreement, the agreed sale consideration was Rs.2,50,000/-. The
agreement was printed on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- but was not
registered. On that day the appellant had paid Rs.2,00,000/- by
way of earnest. The suit was however filed on 21.08.2003, nearly
five years after the agreement.
It is relevant to note that from and out of the aforesaid 22
Kanals 17 Marlas of land, an extent of 8 Kanals of land was sold
away by the first defendant in favour of defendant no.2 (respondent
no.1 herein) vide transaction dated 01.07.2003. The Deed of
Conveyance recorded the consideration to be Rs.1,60,000/- for the
extent of 8 Kanals of land. The suit was filed after this
transaction.
2
In the suit, it was submitted that the first defendant had no
authority to sell the extent of 8 Kanals and that the second
defendant would also be bound by the decree of specific
performance. The suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court which
granted the decree of specific performance in favour of the
appellant in respect of the entire land of 22 Kanals 17 Marlas.
In the appeal preferred by the second defendant, the Appellate
Court concluded that the second defendant was a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice and, as such, the relief of specific
performance could not be granted as against him. The Appellate
Court, therefore, modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and
excluded the extent of 8 Kanals of land and confirmed the decree
only to the extent of remainder portion of the land, that is to
say, 14 Kanals and 17 Marlas.
In the second appeal preferred by the appellant, the
substantial questions of law were framed by the High Court vide
order dated 15.01.2015 and the matter was taken up for hearing. By
Order dated 18.03.2019, the Second Appeal No.3324 of 2010 was
dismissed by the High Court, which order is presently under
challenge.
We have heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for
respondent no.1.
3
Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel submitted that the
discussion in the impugned judgment had proceeded on points which
were completely different from the questions of law framed by the
High Court. According to him, the High Court ought to have
concentrated on the issue whether the purchase by respondent no.2
was bona fide or not.
With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone
through the entire record and are satisfied that the purchase by
respondent no.2 was completely bona fide . The agreement dated
31.07.1998 was an unregistered one and the plaintiff himself had
not initiated any action for more than five years. There is
nothing on record to indicate that any public notice was given or
that defendant no.2 was aware of the agreement between the
plaintiff and defendant no.1. The price paid by the defendant no.2
in respect of the extent of 8 Kanals can also not be said to be
inadequate or in any way at a lesser rate. The record also
discloses that defendant no.2 was a mortgagee in whose favour a
registered deed was executed by defendant no.1. All these facets
taken together completely prove that defendant no.2 was a bona fide
purchaser for value and, as such, the assessment made by the
Appellate Court was absolutely correct and justified.
The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the second
appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
That leaves us with the question - whether the appellant would
be entitled to the rest of the land and at what price?
4
If we go by the agreement dated 31.07.1998, the appellant had
made over 4/5 th
of the consideration and if the extent of 8 Kanals
of land is left out, what the appellant would now be entitled to is
the extent of 14 Kanals 17 Marlas, which is less than the 2/3rd of
the land.
Though served, the defendant no.1 has chosen not to appear in
the matter and thus we have not had the benefit of hearing him on
this issue. However, considering the fact that 4/5 th
consideration
was actually paid way back in 1998, that consideration should be
sufficient for the extent of land which will now be 2/3rd of the
land.
We, therefore, order accordingly and direct that the suit for
specific performance stands decreed in respect of the extent of 14
Kanals 17 Marlas at the price of Rs.2,00,000/- as stated above.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed
of. No costs.
.................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
.................................J.
[VINEET SARAN]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
5
ITEM NO.71 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13528/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-03-2019
in RSA No.3324/2010 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At
Chandigarh)
SATBIR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
INDER SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 04-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR
Mr. Aditya Dahiya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the File)
Apex court held that
the purchase by respondent no.2 was completely bona fide . The agreement dated
31.07.1998 was an unregistered one and the plaintiff himself had not initiated any action for more than five years. There is nothing on record to indicate that any public notice was given or that defendant no.2 was aware of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The price paid by the defendant no.2
in respect of the extent of 8 Kanals can also not be said to be inadequate or in any way at a lesser rate. The record also discloses that defendant no.2 was a mortgagee in whose favour a registered deed was executed by defendant no.1. All these facets taken together completely prove that defendant no.2 was a bona fide
purchaser for value and, as such, the assessment made by the Appellate Court was absolutely correct and justified.
The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7010 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13528/2019
SATBIR Appellant
VERSUS
INDER SINGH & ANR. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.RBT-697 of 2003
seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 31.07.1998 by
which the first defendant (respondent no.2 herein) had agreed to
transfer 22 Kanals 17 Marlas of land to the appellant. Under the
agreement, the agreed sale consideration was Rs.2,50,000/-. The
agreement was printed on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- but was not
registered. On that day the appellant had paid Rs.2,00,000/- by
way of earnest. The suit was however filed on 21.08.2003, nearly
five years after the agreement.
It is relevant to note that from and out of the aforesaid 22
Kanals 17 Marlas of land, an extent of 8 Kanals of land was sold
away by the first defendant in favour of defendant no.2 (respondent
no.1 herein) vide transaction dated 01.07.2003. The Deed of
Conveyance recorded the consideration to be Rs.1,60,000/- for the
extent of 8 Kanals of land. The suit was filed after this
transaction.
2
In the suit, it was submitted that the first defendant had no
authority to sell the extent of 8 Kanals and that the second
defendant would also be bound by the decree of specific
performance. The suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court which
granted the decree of specific performance in favour of the
appellant in respect of the entire land of 22 Kanals 17 Marlas.
In the appeal preferred by the second defendant, the Appellate
Court concluded that the second defendant was a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice and, as such, the relief of specific
performance could not be granted as against him. The Appellate
Court, therefore, modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and
excluded the extent of 8 Kanals of land and confirmed the decree
only to the extent of remainder portion of the land, that is to
say, 14 Kanals and 17 Marlas.
In the second appeal preferred by the appellant, the
substantial questions of law were framed by the High Court vide
order dated 15.01.2015 and the matter was taken up for hearing. By
Order dated 18.03.2019, the Second Appeal No.3324 of 2010 was
dismissed by the High Court, which order is presently under
challenge.
We have heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for
respondent no.1.
3
Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel submitted that the
discussion in the impugned judgment had proceeded on points which
were completely different from the questions of law framed by the
High Court. According to him, the High Court ought to have
concentrated on the issue whether the purchase by respondent no.2
was bona fide or not.
With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone
through the entire record and are satisfied that the purchase by
respondent no.2 was completely bona fide . The agreement dated
31.07.1998 was an unregistered one and the plaintiff himself had
not initiated any action for more than five years. There is
nothing on record to indicate that any public notice was given or
that defendant no.2 was aware of the agreement between the
plaintiff and defendant no.1. The price paid by the defendant no.2
in respect of the extent of 8 Kanals can also not be said to be
inadequate or in any way at a lesser rate. The record also
discloses that defendant no.2 was a mortgagee in whose favour a
registered deed was executed by defendant no.1. All these facets
taken together completely prove that defendant no.2 was a bona fide
purchaser for value and, as such, the assessment made by the
Appellate Court was absolutely correct and justified.
The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the second
appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
That leaves us with the question - whether the appellant would
be entitled to the rest of the land and at what price?
4
If we go by the agreement dated 31.07.1998, the appellant had
made over 4/5 th
of the consideration and if the extent of 8 Kanals
of land is left out, what the appellant would now be entitled to is
the extent of 14 Kanals 17 Marlas, which is less than the 2/3rd of
the land.
Though served, the defendant no.1 has chosen not to appear in
the matter and thus we have not had the benefit of hearing him on
this issue. However, considering the fact that 4/5 th
consideration
was actually paid way back in 1998, that consideration should be
sufficient for the extent of land which will now be 2/3rd of the
land.
We, therefore, order accordingly and direct that the suit for
specific performance stands decreed in respect of the extent of 14
Kanals 17 Marlas at the price of Rs.2,00,000/- as stated above.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed
of. No costs.
.................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
.................................J.
[VINEET SARAN]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
5
ITEM NO.71 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13528/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-03-2019
in RSA No.3324/2010 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At
Chandigarh)
SATBIR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
INDER SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 04-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR
Mr. Aditya Dahiya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the File)
