Govinddas vs Shrimati Shantibai - 1972 Supreme(SC) 48

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1972 Supreme(SC) 48

M. H. BEG, S. M. SIKRI, A. N. RAY
Govinddas – Appellant
Versus
Shrimati Shantibai – Respondent

Advocates:
B.A.Bhate, K.L.Mehta, K.R.NAGARAJA, O.P.Varma, S.C.Manchanda, S.K.MEHTA

Judgement Key Points

What is the question of notice to the appellants regarding the agreement to sell (Souda) dated March 1, 1960, and whether the appellants are bona fide purchasers without notice? What is the appropriate onus of proof to establish bona fides of the appellants in a sale with prior agreement, and whether the High Court correctly held that the appellants had notice of the prior agreement? What evidence supports the conclusion that the appellants had express notice of the March 1, 1960 agreement and/or that they were in possession of or aware of prior negotiations, leading to dismissal of the appeal?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the question of notice to the appellants regarding the agreement to sell (Souda) dated March 1, 1960, and whether the appellants are bona fide purchasers without notice?

What is the appropriate onus of proof to establish bona fides of the appellants in a sale with prior agreement, and whether the High Court correctly held that the appellants had notice of the prior agreement?

What evidence supports the conclusion that the appellants had express notice of the March 1, 1960 agreement and/or that they were in possession of or aware of prior negotiations, leading to dismissal of the appeal?

Judgement

SIKRI, C.J.I. :- Shrimati Shantibai, respondent No. 1 - hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff - brought a suit for the specific performance of an agreement dated March 1, 1960, to sell the property in suit situate at Bombay Bazar, Khandwa, executed by Dagdoo, respondent No. 2 - hereinafter referred to as the vendor - and Dr. Govinddas and Seth Goverdhandas defendants - appellants before us, who had purchased the said property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Having obtained certificate of fitness from the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal before us.

2. The main point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants had notice of the agreement to sell dated March 1, 1960, between the plaintiff and the vendor. The Trial Court held that the appellants were bona fide purchasers without notice of the prior agreement. The High Court, on the other hand, held that the appellants had notice of the previous agreement. Incidentally, the question of the nature of onus of proof which the appellants had to discharge to prove their bona fide has been debated before us. We have been taken through the evidenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(SC) 48

M. H. BEG, S. M. SIKRI, A. N. RAYGovinddas – AppellantVersusShrimati Shantibai – Respondent

What is the question of notice to the appellants regarding the agreement to sell (Souda) dated March 1, 1960, and whether the appellants are bona fide purchasers without notice?

What is the appropriate onus of proof to establish bona fides of the appellants in a sale with prior agreement, and whether the High Court correctly held that the appellants had notice of the prior agreement?

What evidence supports the conclusion that the appellants had express notice of the March 1, 1960 agreement and/or that they were in possession of or aware of prior negotiations, leading to dismissal of the appeal?

M. H. BEG, S. M. SIKRI, A. N. RAY
Govinddas – Appellant
Versus
Shrimati Shantibai – Respondent