Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Ramdas Bajirao Mohature, filed Special Civil Suit No. 27/1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 23.11.1992 between defendant no.1 (Ramratan Tukaram Bondre) and defendant no.2 (Yamunabai w/o Ramchandra Titarmare) was null and void, and for a direction to defendant no.1 to execute a sale deed in his favour as per an agreement to sell dated 16.10.1992. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant no.1 to purchase agricultural land Gut No. 196 at village Pardi for Rs. 12,500 per acre, paying earnest money of Rs. 4,000. The sale deed was to be executed between 21.3.1993 and 30.3.1993, with a final date of 15.4.1993. However, before that date, defendant no.1 sold the land to defendant no.2 for Rs. 33,000 on 23.11.1992 without cancelling the agreement. The plaintiff sent a notice on 30.11.1992 calling for cancellation of the sale deed, but the defendants did not comply. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the District Judge, Bhandara, set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then filed this second appeal. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. The court noted that the first defendant admitted the agreement and the subsequent sale. The second defendant did not appear despite service. The court held that the second defendant had notice of the prior agreement and was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Judge, and restored the decree of the trial court with costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(b) - Specific Performance - Subsequent Purchaser with Notice - The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the first defendant, who later sold the same property to the second defendant. The court held that the second defendant had notice of the prior agreement and was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance against both defendants. (Paras 2-5) B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A - Part Performance - The plaintiff had paid earnest money and was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The first defendant's subsequent sale to the second defendant was void as against the plaintiff's prior rights. (Paras 2-5) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal involved a substantial question of law regarding the validity of the subsequent sale and the entitlement to specific performance. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower appellate court's judgment. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of an agreement to sell when the defendant vendor sold the property to another person before the agreed date for execution of sale deed, and whether the subsequent purchaser had notice of the prior agreement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 16.10.1996 passed by the District Judge, Bhandara, and restored the decree passed by the trial court in Special Civil Suit No. 27/1993 with costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- agreement to sell
- subsequent sale
- notice
- bona fide purchaser
- Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 53A Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
