1. Nature of Case and Parties Involved

   • Plaintiffs: Six appellants seeking specific performance of a land sale agreement with Sushila Devi's legal heirs.
   • Defendants: Legal heirs of Sushila Devi, original landowner, contested the sale's validity.
   • Trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but High Court overturned the decision. Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.

2. Background of Land Ownership

   • Sushila Devi bought 27.56 acres in 1966. The plaintiffs later claimed Sushila Devi had agreed to sell portions to them under six separate agreements on 30.08.1990.

3. Suit for Specific Performance

   • In 1995, plaintiffs sued for specific performance, asserting full consideration was paid, and possession given. They alleged that legal heirs refused to register the sale deed.

4. Trial Court Findings

   • Trial Court upheld the plaintiffs' claims, confirming payment and possession. It ordered the execution of sale deeds and nullified subsequent sales by heirs to third parties.

5. High Court Findings

   • High Court reversed the trial court’s decision. It questioned the validity of the agreement, citing lack of registration, plaintiff absence in the witness box, and possession ambiguity.

6. Key Issues on Appeal

   • Validity and execution of the sale agreement, applicability of limitation period, plaintiffs’ absence as witnesses, and impact of violation of an injunction by heirs.

Legal Provisions Discussed

• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c) - readiness and willingness to perform contracts.
• Limitation Act, 1963: Article 54 - limitation period in specific performance cases.
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 52 - doctrine of lis pendens.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Onus of proof and presumption regarding execution and contents of a contract.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Execution of Agreement and Power of Attorney Validity

   • The execution of a sale agreement and General Power of Attorney was sufficiently evidenced by testimony and documentation, overriding claims of fraud by the defendants.

2. Limitation Period

   • Without a fixed performance date in the agreement, the limitation period started from the refusal to perform by legal heirs, placing the suit within the prescribed three years.

3. Adverse Inference on Witness Absence

   • The absence of plaintiffs in the witness box did not invalidate the suit due to sufficient representation through Power of Attorney holders with firsthand transaction knowledge.

4. Violation of Injunction

   • Heirs’ sale of the property during an injunction’s pendency reflects bad faith, justifying the nullification of those transactions.

Subjects:

Specific Performance, Land Dispute, Civil Procedure, Limitation Act, Contract Law

Specific Relief, Agreement to Sell, Land Ownership, Injunction Violation, Adverse Inference, Doctrine of Lis Pendens