WAHEED BAIG versus SANGI LAKSHMAMMA & ORS.

WAHEED BAIG versus SANGI LAKSHMAMMA & ORS.

Agreement for sale by defendant No.1 was null and void as he lacked alienable title; the property vested in the Government, and defendant No.1 was merely a lessee with no right to sell. High Court's direction to transfer property was legally untenable. Only refund of consideration was appropriate.

Parties
Appellant/defendant No.1: Waheed Baig; Respondents/plaintiffs: Sangi Lakshmammas & Ors.; Respondent No.4: Labour Department/Commissioner of Labour Andhra Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 135 of 1995 (andhra Pradesh High Court)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Immovable Property, Lease Cum Sale, Defective Title, Refund of Consideration
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Immovable Property Lease Cum Sale Defective Title Refund of Consideration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waheed Baig

Appellant/defendant No.1

Sangi Lakshmammas & Ors.

Respondents/plaintiffs

Labour Department/Commissioner of Labour Andhra Pradesh

Respondent No.4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 135 of 1995 (andhra Pradesh High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of sale was valid where the vendor had no title to the property.
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser is entitled to specific performance or refund of consideration under Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
  3. 3 Whether the second appeal before the High Court was competent under Section 100 of CPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Agreement for sale by defendant No.1 was null and void as he lacked alienable title; the property vested in the Government, and defendant No.1 was merely a lessee with no right to sell. High Court's direction to transfer property was legally untenable. Only refund of consideration was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Direction of first appellate court for refund of consideration to vendee stands restored.
  • High Court's orders for transfer of property to defendant and then to plaintiff set aside.