Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard two appeals together: the first by the original seller of agricultural land challenging the concurrent findings of lower courts that the plaintiff purchasers were ready and willing to perform the contract; the second by pendente lite transferees whose objections in execution proceedings were rejected. The dispute centered on an agreement to sell dated 08.10.2001 for 73 Kanals 12 Marlas of land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. The appellant Krishan Gopal received Rs.1,00,000/- earnest and agreed to execute the sale deed by 31.01.2002 after receiving the balance Rs.9,00,000/-. The agreement noted that possession was not with him at that time. The plaintiff purchasers, Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons, instituted Suit No. 508 of 2002 on 20.04.2002 seeking specific performance, claiming they were put in possession in November 2001 and had spent Rs.8,00,000/- to make the land cultivable, and were always ready and willing to pay. The defendant seller contested readiness and willingness and alleged non-payment. During trial, it emerged that one Arun Kalia had obtained an order from the Tahsildar on 22.05.2002 declaring him in possession, and that Krishan Gopal, without disclosing the suit, executed two registered sale deeds in favour of Arun Kalia on 29.05.2002. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 21.10.2008, finding the plaintiffs ready and willing, noting their sound financial position and the defendant’s inconsistent statements about attending the Sub-Registrar’s office on 31.01.2002. The First Appellate Court and the High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeals. During execution, Arun Kalia and his subsequent purchasers (Krishan Dev Pathak and Kamla Dev Pathak) – to whom he had sold the land on 04.04.2012 – filed objections under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, alleging that the decree was collusive. The Executing Court rejected the objections on 08.07.2016, holding that the decree was not collusive as the suit was contested for six years and that the sale deeds were hit by Section 52 TP Act. The High Court dismissed the objectors’ civil revision, observing they were pendente lite transferees and had failed to establish a prima facie case. Before the Supreme Court, Krishan Gopal argued that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing, and the objectors contended that the decree was a collusive fraud. The plaintiffs countered that their financial capacity and conduct demonstrated readiness, and that the subsequent transfers were void. The Court reaffirmed settled legal principles: readiness and willingness need not be proved by physical production of money; it can be inferred from conduct. The plaintiffs had substantial bank balances, owned other properties, and had invested in the land, satisfying the requirement. The defendant’s contradictory stances undermined his credibility. Regarding the transfers, the Court held that the sale deeds executed after the suit were void under Section 52 TP Act and the doctrine of lis pendens, conferring no title. The objectors, being pendente lite transferees, were not independent third parties and could not obstruct execution absent prima facie collusion. No evidence of collusion existed given the protracted litigation. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed. The decree for specific performance passed on 21.10.2008 was confirmed, and the sale deeds dated 29.05.2002 and 04.04.2012 were declared void. The execution of the decree was to proceed unhindered.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - A purchaser seeking specific performance need not physically tender or carry the balance sale consideration; readiness and willingness can be inferred from the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances, such as financial capacity, expenditure on land, and consistent pursuit of remedy – The defendant’s inconsistent statements about attending the Sub-Registrar’s office and the plaintiffs’ sound financial position evidenced by bank statements supported the finding of readiness and willingness (Paras 12-13). B) Transfer of Property - Lis Pendens - Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - A transfer of immovable property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance is void against the transferee and does not confer valid title; a pendente lite transferee is not an independent third party and cannot assert rights superior to those of the transferor-judgment debtor – Sale deeds executed on 29.05.2002 and 04.04.2012 were thus hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and did not vest any legally enforceable title (Paras 10, 14). C) Civil Procedure - Execution - Order XXI, Rule 97 - A pendente lite transferee filing objections under Section 47/Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC must show a prima facie case of collusion or fraud to necessitate framing of issues and adducing evidence; where no such prima facie case is established, the executing court may reject the objections in limine – The objectors, being transferees pendente lite, failed to demonstrate any collusion as the suit was contested over six years and the issues were already adjudicated, thus their objections were rightly dismissed without a full trial (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform the contract for sale of land; whether the sale deeds executed during pendency of suit were void and whether the decree could be obstructed by pendente lite transferees on ground of collusion
Final Decision
Both Civil Appeal No. 2849 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 9495 of 2025 dismissed. The decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.10.2001 passed by the Trial Court on 21.10.2008 confirmed. The sale deeds dated 29.05.2002 and 04.04.2012 held void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the doctrine of lis pendens; they do not confer valid title. The execution of the decree will proceed. All interim orders stand vacated.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Readiness and willingness inferred from conduct
- purchaser need not carry money
- transfer pendente lite void under Section 52 TP Act
- pendente lite transferee cannot obstruct execution
