MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. versus KARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. versus KARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

The suit agreement was not a sham; Sections 91 and 92 do not bar adducing evidence as to whether parties agreed to contract, but on the facts the sham contention failed; the registered agreement gave constructive notice so subsequent purchasers were not bona fide purchasers without notice; under s.19(b) Specific Relief Act a decree of specific performance can be granted against subsequent purchasers without a prayer for cancellation of subsequent deeds; s.154-B bars execution of a sale deed in favour of a non-agriculturist but not the agreement and the court can direct defendants to apply for permission and make execution contingent on grant of permission; decree modified to grant only...

Parties
Appellants: Maharaj Singh & Ors.; Respondents: Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment of the Supreme Court (final Disposal on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Agreement for Sale, Subsequent Purchasers, Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice, Readiness and Willingness, Registration and Constructive Notice, Cancellation of Subsequent Sale Deeds, Permission Under S.154 B of Zamindari Abolition Act
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Evidence Act, 1872 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Registration Act, 1908 Zamindari Abolition Act (uttaranchal Amendment) Land Reform/property Law Specific Performance Agreement for Sale +6 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maharaj Singh & Ors.

Appellants

Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment of the Supreme Court (final Disposal on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can the contention that the suit agreement was sham and bogus and not intended to be acted upon be allowed to be raised notwithstanding Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act?
  2. 2 Was the suit agreement sham and bogus and not intended to be acted upon?
  3. 3 Were the second to fourth defendants bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the suit agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The suit agreement was not a sham; Sections 91 and 92 do not bar adducing evidence as to whether parties agreed to contract, but on the facts the sham contention failed; the registered agreement gave constructive notice so subsequent purchasers were not bona fide purchasers without notice; under s.19(b) Specific Relief Act a decree of specific performance can be granted against subsequent purchasers without a prayer for cancellation of subsequent deeds; s.154-B bars execution of a sale deed in favour of a non-agriculturist but not the agreement and the court can direct defendants to apply for permission and make execution contingent on grant of permission; decree modified to grant only...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Impugned decree modified by directing the legal representative of the first defendant and second to fourth defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff (Karan Singh) only to the extent of one half undivided share in the suit property.
  • Defendants shall join the first plaintiff in applying to the State Government/Competent Authority for grant of permission under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 154-B of the Zamindari Abolition Act to sell the one half-undivided share to the first plaintiff within two months; it shall be the defendants'...