Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to six suits for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by Sushila Devi in favour of the appellants for 23.98 acres of agricultural land in Bhopal. The appellants paid the entire sale consideration and took possession. Sushila Devi died on 25.12.1992. The legal heirs refused to execute sale deeds and obtained mutation. The appellants filed suits in May 1995. During the suit, an interim injunction was granted on 04.12.2000 restraining alienation, but the legal heirs sold the property to third parties on 18.01.2001. The Trial Court decreed the suits on 14.05.2001, holding the agreement valid, full payment made, possession delivered, and the subsequent sale deeds void. The High Court in first appeal reversed the decree and dismissed the suits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restored the Trial Court's decree, and directed specific performance. The court held that the appellants were ready and willing, time was not the essence, and the subsequent transfers violated the injunction and were void.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellants paid full consideration and took possession; time was not the essence of the contract. The court held that the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part, as only registration remained. (Paras 1-10)
B) Evidence - Agreement to Sell - Admissibility - Stamp Act, 1899 - The respondents argued that the agreement required compulsory registration and sufficient stamp duty. The court held that the agreement was admissible for collateral purposes and the issue of stamp duty could be cured. (Paras 7-9)
C) Property Law - HUF Property - Validity of Agreement - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The respondents claimed the property belonged to HUF and Sushila Devi alone could not sell. The court found no evidence of HUF ownership; Sushila Devi was the recorded owner. (Paras 8-9)
D) Injunction - Violation of Court Order - Subsequent Alienation - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rule 2A - The sale deeds dated 18.01.2001 were executed despite an interim injunction order dated 04.12.2000. The court held such transfers were void and not binding on the appellants. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by Sushila Devi, and whether the subsequent sale deeds dated 18.01.2001 are void and not binding on the appellants.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree directing specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. The subsequent sale deeds dated 18.01.2001 were declared void and not binding on the appellants.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to Sell
- readiness and willingness
- time not essence of contract
- subsequent alienation
- injunction violation
- HUF property
- stamp duty
- registration
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (11) 120
Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015 etc. etc.
Shyam Kumar Inani and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suits for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell.
Remedy Sought
Decree directing defendants to execute sale deeds, declaration that subsequent sale deeds are void, and permanent injunction.
Filing Reason
Legal heirs of Sushila Devi refused to execute sale deeds despite full payment and possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suits on 14.05.2001; High Court allowed first appeal and dismissed the suits.
Issues
Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 was validly executed by Sushila Devi?
Whether the appellants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract?
Whether the subsequent sale deeds dated 18.01.2001 are void for violating the injunction order?
Whether the property belonged to HUF and the agreement was void for lack of consent?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: Agreement executed, full consideration paid, possession taken, time not essence, ready and willing, subsequent transfers void.
Respondents: Agreement not executed, insufficient stamp duty, property owned by HUF, sale consideration inadequate.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants paid full consideration, took possession, and were ready and willing to perform; time was not the essence of the contract. The subsequent sale deeds executed in violation of the interim injunction are void. The agreement is admissible and the HUF claim is unsupported.
Judgment Excerpts
The six appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of a contract.
The Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the High Court, on first appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
The dispute relates to 23.98 acres of Khasra Nos.546, 547 and 548 situate in village Godar Mau, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal.
Sushila Devi was the owner of the suit schedule property. She entered into an Agreement to Sell on 30.08.1990 with each of the appellants separately after receiving the entire sale consideration.
The appellants had taken over actual possession, having paid the entire sale consideration.
As the entire sale consideration had been paid, the time was not the essence of contract and the same was also incorporated in the Agreement to Sell in clause 6.
Trial Court passed an interim injunction order on 04.12.2000 putting a restraint on the alienation of the property in suit.
Despite there being an injunction order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property, the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 14.05.2001, decreed all the suits.
The High Court, on first appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Procedural History
The appellants filed separate suits for specific performance in May 1995. The Trial Court decreed the suits on 14.05.2001. The respondents filed first appeals, and the High Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. The appellants then filed the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Stamp Act, 1899:
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rule 2A
