Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
Sirdar K.B. Ramachandra Raj Urs. (Dead) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Sarah C. Urs and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6049, 6050 of 2007
Decided On : 24-10-2019
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Concurrent findings are recorded as to receipt of consideration and execution of agreement to sell – There are concurrent findings recorded concerning execution of agreement and it has been rightly found established that signatures were not obtained on blank papers – There is concurrent finding recorded by courts below that consideration has been paid – No case for interference is made out in such findings – Suit has been held not to be barred by limitation – Given facts and material placed on record, no interference is called for with those findings also – Plea of estoppel is not attracted – There is no proper foundation in pleading regarding plea of estoppel – There was no possibility of erroneous beliefs in mind of plaintiffs as to title position in property – Defendant No.1 has acted as a power of attorney, but at the same time, did not act in his capacity as owner of property – Plaintiffs held to be entitled only to the extent of ½ share in suit property – Decree to remaining extent set aside – Plaintiffs would not be entitled to refund of any consideration as by now worth of property has increased manifold. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 22, 23 and 24)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Estoppel – Estoppel by conduct could not arise when a person concerned knew right position relating to title in property in his possession – He could not plead that he was induced to hold an erroneous belief because of conduct of real owner of that property. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2007 passed by High Court, affirming judgment and order of trial court decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Findings of Court:
In view of agreement and the admission made by plaintiffs, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify decree passed by the courts below to the extent of 50 per cent of shares of the deceased late K. Basavaraja Urs and to set it aside with respect to the remaining ½ share of K.B. Ramchandra Raj Urs (defendant No.1) in the property, since the property devolved under Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the High Court, affirming the judgment and order of the trial court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit concerning suit scheduled property inherited by Princess Leelavathi, wife of late K. Basavaraja Urs. She had adopted the defendant No. 1 and died during the year 1958-59. The suit scheduled property along with adjoining properties devolved on late K. Basavaraja Urs, father of K.B. Ramachandra Raj Urs, defendant No. 1, in terms of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were the close relatives and friend of the family of late K. Basavaraja Urs and the 2nd plaintiff apart from being a close relative and friend of Defendant No. 1, was also a Legal Advisor and Advocate of late K. Basavaraja Urs.
3. The property was let out to plaintiff No. 2 in the year 1969 by late K. Basavaraja Urs and defendant No. 1. Late K. Basavaraja Urs and defendant No. 1 sold the adjoining property to various persons vide registered sale deeds. Late K. Basavaraja Urs offered to sell the suit scheduled property to the plaintiffs. On 24.4.1979, late K. Basavaraja Urs, represented by his son, i.e. defendant No. 1 as power of attorney, entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received on the same day. The defendant No. 1 agreed to obtain a clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act as also under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The plaintiffs continued to have the possession of suit property in part performance of the agreement dated 24.04.1979 and stopped paying rent.
4. The defendant No. 1 always ensured the plaintiffs to execute the registered sale deed in terms of suit agreement after obtaining a clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department and under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. On 1.6.1993, defendant No. 1 received the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- from 2nd plaintiff and executed a stamped receipt in favour of the plaintiffs with an undertaking to execute the deed of conveyance.
5. The defendant No. 1, made the correspondence with the Income Tax Department to obtain the Income Tax clearance. However, the need to seek permission under the Urban Land Ceiling Authority vanished as per the decision of this Court concerning section 27 of the said Act as defendant No. 1 was postponing to execute the registered sale deed on one pretext or the other. A legal notice dated 5.6.1990 was served, and after that, the suit had been filed on 19.9.1990 seeking specific performance.
6. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in their written statements contended that the 2nd plaintiff claimed to be a close relative of late K. Basavaraja Urs. He was his lawyer and self- assumed trustee. He obtained the signatures of defendant no. 1 on blank papers, which has been misused by the 2nd plaintiff to create the agreement in question dated 24.4.1979. It was assured that agreement was obtained as a collateral document to secure professional charges, which, according to the plaintiff, remained unpaid.
7. The defendants denied the receipt of the sale consideration on 24.4.1979 and 1.6.1993 and also the subsequent correspondence between plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1 and his Tax Consultant. The 2nd plaintiff was never permitted to put up construction on the property by the defendant No. 1. After the demise of Princess Leelavathi, the suit property devolved on late K. Basavaraja Urs and defendant No. 1. The 1st defendant has not conveyed his interest in the suit property in favour of plaintiffs. Defendants contended that no agreement was entered into with the plaintiffs. The suit is barred by time.
8. Defendant No. 5, in his written statement, took the plea that the property being ancestral could not have been sold by defenda
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
