Important Point
The documentary as well as oral evidence leaves no room for doubt that High Court was right in its finding that defendant No. 2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of suit agreement (and is protected u/s. 19(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963).

Headnote:(i) Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 19(1)(b) (=Section 27 of Specific Relief Act, 1877)-Agreement for sale of immovable property by plaintiff with defendant 1 -Defendant 1 selling to defendant 2-Defendant 2 to defendant 3 and defendant 3 to defendant 4 pendente lite-Defendant 2 alleging he was purchaser for value without notice of earlier agreement to sell-Onus-Lies on shoulders of subsequent transferee-Broad test of probabilities-Defendant 2 and defendant 3 found to be bona fide purchasers from defendant 1 for value as per documentary evidence on record and also as per oral evidence -Plea of sitting tenant that he had right of pre-emption and subsequent sale after expiry of time but later extended do not shake the finding. (Para 11, 13, 14 & 15)
       (ii) Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 19-Whether the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed by DB in LPA to the effect that defendant 2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is erroneous and liable to be set aside? (No). (Para 17)
       (iii) Specific Relief Act, 1963-Damages in lieu of decree of Specific Performance-High Court granting Rs. 10,000/- against defendant 1-Defendant 1 subsequently transferring to defendant 4-Defendant 4 in order to buy peace and put an end to this litigation agreeing to pay additional Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff to avoid heart burning-Appeal disposed of subject to this modification in damages. (Para 19)

Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.-This appeal on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is moved by the original plaintiff whose suit for specific performance of the suit agreement came to be decreed by the Trial Court but got dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and which dismissal in turn was confirmed by a Letters Patent Bench of the High Court. We will refer to the appellant as plaintiff and the respondents concerned as defendants, for the sake of convenience, in the latter part of this judgment. We may also mention that pending this appeal original defendant No. 2 has sold the suit property to one Yash Pal, son of Shri Hans Raj who is sought to be joined as party respondent No. 4 by I.A. No. 3 moved by the plaintiff. Similar application is moved by the said purchaser pendente lite being I.A. No. 4. Both these I.As. are granted. Consequently the subsequent purchaser has become respondent No. 4 in this appeal. He will be treated as defendant No. 4.

2. A few relevant facts leading to this appeal are required to be noted at the outset with a view to appreciating the grievance of the plaintiff.

Background Facts

3. The suit house consisting of 5 rooms, a verandah and courtyard measuring 7 marlas out of the entire property consisting of 14 marlas situated at Moga town earlier falling within the district of Faridkot and now included in the newly formed Moga District in the State of Punjab belonged to defendant No. 1 Jagdish Rai. The said property was mortgaged by defendant No. 1 in favour of one Rajinder Singh by a registered usufructuary mortgage deed Ex. D-3 dated 26th July 1973 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter defendant No. 1 entered into the suit agreement Ex. P-1 dated 28th September 1973 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the said suit agreement defendant No. 1 agreed to sell his right, title and interest in the suit property for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. In the said agreement it was provided that defendant No. 1 will execute the registration deed by 30th December 1973 in favour of the plaintiff. The said agreement recited that defendant No. 1 was the sole owner of the house which was in his exclusive possession and that it was free from all encumbrances of Government or non-Government or any mortgage. By a subsequent agreement dated 26th December 1973 defendant No. 1 Jagdish Rai got the time for execution of the sale deed under the suit agreement extended upto 30h June 1974. The said extension agreement is Ex. P-2. It was recited therein that under the agreement of 28th September 1973 the date of execution of the registration of the house was fixed upto 30th December 1973. But because he was unable to get the sale deed executed by 30th December 1973 the date of the execution of the sale deed was extended by mutual agreement upto 30th June 1974. Thereafter defendant No. 1 Jagdish Rai entered into a sale deed for Rs. 20,000/- conveying his right, title and interest in one half of the suit property which in turn was a part of 14 marlas and which was joint with his brother, in favour of Jagir Singh, son of Kapur Singh. The said sale deed is at Ex. D-1 dated 23rd January 1974. The said sale deed recited that the entire house consisted of 14 marlas. It was joint with his brother and consequently one half share of defendant No. 1 consisted of 7 marlas which was earlier mortgaged for Rs. 5,000/-. Out of that one half share of defendant No. 1 further one half thereof, that is, 1/4th of the entire house to the extent of 3-1/2 marlas was being sold to Jagir Singh for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The document recited that out of Rs. 10,000/- earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- was received by defendant No. 1 and the balance of Rs. 5,000/- was retained by the purchaser for paying off the mortgagee and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- would be received by defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the document before Sub-Registrar, Moga. Said Jagir Singh was joined as defendant No. 3 in the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 539

Important PointThe documentary as well as oral evidence leaves no room for doubt that High Court was right in its finding that defendant No. 2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of suit agreement (and is protected u/s. 19(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963).

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
The documentary as well as oral evidence leaves no room for doubt that High Court was right in its finding that defendant No. 2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of suit agreement (and is protected u/s. 19(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963).