SHRI SHIVJI versus SHRI RAGHUNATH (DEAD) AND ORS.

SHRI SHIVJI versus SHRI RAGHUNATH (DEAD) AND ORS.

The agreement was a valid contract, created no present interest in property, and thus the rule against perpetuity does not apply. As Reshambai executed a valid agreement to sell, the restriction operated as a liability rather than an absolute prohibition. The subsequent purchaser (the appellant), who had notice of the agreement, is bound by it and acquires no better title than what could be conveyed by the vendor.

Parties
Appellant: Shri Shivji; Respondents: Shri Raghunath (Dead) and Ors.; Defendant: Smt. Reshambai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 323 of 1974
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance of Contract, Rule Against Perpetuity, Pre Emptive Rights, Transfer of Property
Property Law Contract Law Specific Relief Specific Performance of Contract Rule Against Perpetuity Pre Emptive Rights Transfer of Property

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shri Shivji

Appellant

Shri Raghunath (Dead) and Ors.

Respondents

Smt. Reshambai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 323 of 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of sale executed by Reshambai in favour of the respondent was valid or void due to fraud or rule against perpetuity.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement of sale imposed an unlawful restraint on alienation making it void.
  3. 3 Whether a subsequent purchaser with notice can obtain valid title against an existing agreement to sell.

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was a valid contract, created no present interest in property, and thus the rule against perpetuity does not apply. As Reshambai executed a valid agreement to sell, the restriction operated as a liability rather than an absolute prohibition. The subsequent purchaser (the appellant), who had notice of the agreement, is bound by it and acquires no better title than what could be conveyed by the vendor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The suit for specific performance is decreed.
  • No order as to costs.