ANIL R.DAVE, RANJAN GOGOI, R.M.LODHA
Hansa V. Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Deep Shankar Roy – Respondent
What is the effect of non-registration of an agreement under Section 4(1) of MOFA on the purchaser's rights to specific performance? What is the burden of proof when alleging that subsequent buyers are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice? What are the rights of plaintiffs who paid installments under a letter of intent but defaulted on payments after cancellation by the developer?
Key Points: - Plaintiffs filed suits for specific performance of flat purchase agreements with the Developer or, alternatively, refund of amounts paid with damages [1000527810001][1000527810005]. - Developer issued letters of intent reserving flats subject to payment of installments and compliance with conditions, including execution of agreement to sale upon full payment [1000527810003] (!) (!) . - Plaintiffs paid initial installments but stopped after Developer increased prices due to construction delays from litigation; Developer cancelled reservations via letter dated 19th December 1997 [1000527810005][1000527810007]. - Subsequent Buyers purchased the flats at increased prices, paid full consideration, and took possession; agreements with plaintiffs were not registered under Section 4(1) of MOFA [1000527810006][1000527810008][1000527810016]. - Trial court decreed specific performance in favor of plaintiffs; High Court reversed, ordering refund with 9% interest from cancellation date [1000527810009][1000527810011]. - No binding agreement to sell existed as letter of intent was conditional and unregistered; plaintiffs failed to fulfill payment conditions [1000527810021][1000527810022][1000527810024]. - Plaintiffs did not plead that Subsequent Buyers lacked bona fides or had notice, failing to discharge burden of proof; Subsequent Buyers held bona fide without registered document creating presumption of notice [1000527810014][1000527810025]. - Supreme Court upheld High Court, denying specific performance but modified interest to 12% p.a. from cancellation date, payable by Developer within two months [1000527810027].
Judgment :-
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Being aggrieved by a common judgment delivered in First Appeal Nos.492, 493 and 499 of 2002, dated 24th August, 2005 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, these appeals have been filed by the original plaintiffs, who had filed the suits for specific performance.
2. As the facts involved in all these three appeals are similar in nature, all these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of clarity, we are referring to all the parties by their description as it was before the trial court. The Developer of the property, original Defendant No.1 is now respondent No. 2 in all the appeals whereas respondent no.1 is a subsequent buyer of the property in question. M/s. O.P. Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) was the owner of the land which was being developed by the Developer.
3. The Developer had entered into an agreement to develop the property i.e. land owned by the Society and thereafter to sell the flats constructed on the land in question to the intending purchasers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 17th April, 1992.
4. Each plaintiff wanted to purchase one
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.