Maharaj Singh vs. Karan Singh (Dead) through LRs. [July 09, 2024]
Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 396; 2024 INSC 491; Civil Appeal No. 6782 of 2013
Background and Facts
The dispute centered on a 1981 registered agreement for sale of bhumidhari land (2.90 acres, Khasra No. 48, village Jauniwala, Tehsil Kashipur, District Nainital) executed by the first defendant in favor of the plaintiffs, Karan Singh and Murari Singh. The agreement was between relatives, and the plaintiffs sought specific performance. Subsequently, the first defendant sold the property to third parties (defendants 2-4), who claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The plaintiffs sued for specific performance, while the subsequent purchasers contested the suit, alleging the agreement was forged and never intended to be acted upon. Notably, the second plaintiff (Murari Singh) did not support the suit and instead testified for the defendants, stating the agreement was only to prevent the first defendant from alienating the land.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the 1981 agreement for sale was genuine and enforceable.
Whether the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether the decree for specific performance could be granted for the entire property when only one plaintiff (Karan Singh) pursued the claim.
The effect of the absence of a prayer for cancellation of subsequent sale deeds.
Findings and Reasoning
Genuineness of Agreement: The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all found the execution of the agreement for sale proved. The Supreme Court saw no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings, especially given the registration of the agreement, which provided constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.
Bona Fide Purchasers: The Court held that the subsequent purchasers could not claim protection as bona fide purchasers without notice, as the registered agreement constituted constructive notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.
Relief to Plaintiffs: The Supreme Court observed that since the second plaintiff (Murari Singh) did not support the suit and had not shown readiness and willingness, specific performance could only be granted to Karan Singh for his undivided half-share. The decree for specific performance was accordingly modified and restricted to one-half undivided share in favor of Karan Singh.
No Bar from Absence of Cancellation Prayer: The Court reiterated that the absence of a prayer for cancellation of subsequent sale deeds does not bar the grant of specific performance, provided the agreement is genuine and enforceable.
Compliance with Agricultural Land Laws: The parties were directed to jointly apply for permission under Section 154-B(2)(h) of the Zamindari Abolition Act for the sale to comply with local land laws.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the decree to restrict specific performance to Karan Singh’s undivided half-share in the suit property.
The judgment clarifies the law on specific performance where multiple plaintiffs are involved but only some pursue the claim, and reiterates the principle that registration of an agreement provides constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.
The case is significant for its treatment of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser, and the enforceability of sale agreements involving agricultural land.
In summary: The Supreme Court upheld specific performance for the plaintiff who pursued the claim, denied protection to subsequent purchasers due to constructive notice, and clarified that absence of a cancellation prayer does not bar relief where the agreement is genuine.
RELATED Blog
0 comments