Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Seethakathi Trust Madras – Appellant
Versus
Krishnaveni – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5384-5385 of 2014
Decided On : 17-01-2022
(A) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – It is not necessary to go into issue of adverse possession as both parties are claiming title – Crucial aspect is decree obtained for specific performance by Respondent and manner of obtaining decree – Respondent was fully aware of prior registered transaction in respect of same property originally in favour of purchaser – Decree could not have been obtained behind back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when transaction had taken place prior to institution of suit for specific performance – Case of original purchaser and subsequent purchasers including Appellant would fall within exception set out in Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act, being transferees who had paid money in good faith and without notice of original contract – High Court ought not to have interfered with concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court – Suit of Respondent stands dismissed in terms of judgment of trial court and affirmed by first appellate court and impugned judgment of High Court set aside. [Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963] (Paras 24, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Question of law ought to have been framed under Section 100 of Code – Even if question of law had not been framed at stage of admission, at least before deciding the case said question of law ought to have been framed. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
One C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar was the original owner of 120 acres of land comprising S.No.44 and 45 at No.18, Othivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. He entered into an agreement in October, 1959 to sell the Land in favour of Janab Sathak Abdul Khadar Sahib who intended to purchase the same on behalf of the appellant Trust for a sale consideration of Rs.18,000. The appellant Trust was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 originally and now regulated under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The other story is what is set up by the Respondent who claimed that C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar entered into an agreement of sale with her on 10.04.1961 for sale of 50 acres in Patta No.61 and paimash No.987/1 of the Land.
Findings of Court:
Endeavour was to obtain a decree at the back of the real owners and that is the reason, at least, in execution proceedings that the original vendor did not even come forward and the sale deed had to be executed through the process of Court.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment states that it is not necessary to go into adverse possession since both parties claim title; the crucial issue is the decree obtained for specific performance and manner of obtaining it, with awareness of prior registered transaction in favor of Niraja Devi (!) . - Niraja Devi and subsequent purchasers, including the Appellant, fall within the exception in Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, as transferees who paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract (!) . - The High Court erred by entertaining the second appeal without properly framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; framing is mandatory and required before final decision in a second appeal (!) . - The Respondent did not depose in support of her case; the manager’s testimony was not properly authorized and contradicted her own interests, affecting the evaluation of evidence and remedies sought (!) , (!) . - The Court held that the suit should be dismissed in terms of the trial court’s judgment and affirmed by the first appellate court; the impugned High Court judgment is set aside, and appeals are allowed with parties bearing their own costs (!) , (!) . - Delivery of possession by delivery through court process and the genuineness of the delivery receipt were central to whether possession was established, impacting adverse possession considerations (!) , (!) , (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Facts:
1. Land measuring 0.08 cents (100 cents = 1 acre) has seen a dispute spanning almost half a century.
2. One C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar was the original owner of 120 acres of land comprising S.No.44 and 45 at No.18, Othivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. He entered into an agreement in October, 1959 to sell the Land in favour of Janab Sathak Abdul Khadar Sahib who intended to purchase the same on behalf of the appellant Trust for a sale consideration of Rs.18,000. The appellant Trust was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 originally and now regulated under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The other story is what is set up by the Respondent who claimed that C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar entered into an agreement of sale with her on 10.04.1961 for sale of 50 acres in patta No.61 and paimash No.987/1 of the Land.
3. It is the claim of the Appellant that C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar had sold 50 acres out of 120 acres of land to one Niraja Devi on 16.11.1963 vide registered sale deed, who took possession of the said land and enjoyed the same. These 50 acres were bounded by a hillock in the east, land belonging to C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar in the west, Government Reserve Forest in the north and Hasanapuram grazing ground and lake in the south. Niraja Devi sold the 50 acres of land to one Perumal Mudaliar vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.1964, who also took possession of the said land and enjoyed the same. As per the Appellant, Perumal Mudaliar sold the 50 acres of land to the Appellant Trust on 19.03.1968 vide a registered sale deed.
4. Insofar as the remaining 70 acres of land is concerned, C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar and his son sold the same to the Appellant vide registered sale deed dated 19.3.1968. The said property is bounded by the land of Niraja Devi on the east, Kumuli Forest Line on the north, boundary line of Kannivakam Village on the west, and boundary line of Hasanapuram Village on the south. In respect of this 70 acres there is no dispute.
History of the land dispute:
5. The Respondent filed a suit as O.S. No.31 of 1964 before the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu for specific performance of the agreement dated 10.04.1964 against C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar and his son, which was dismissed on 13.08.1964. The Respondent preferred an appeal against the said order, as A.S. No.366/65 before the District Judge, Changalpattu and the said appeal was also dismissed on 08.03.1966. However, the fate of the Respondent brightened in the second appeal, being S.A. No.1673 of 1966, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, when they succeeded in terms of the judgment dated 07.07.1970 whereby specific performance of the agreement dated 10.04.1961 was decreed. The High Court inter alia held that time was not the essence of the contract and the land could be identified. In pursuance of the decree so passed in the second appeal, the Respondent filed for execution, being E.P. No.17 of 1976, before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu. The Sub-Court appointed the Taluk head surveyor as Commissioner for demarcation of 50 acres of land, who subsequently filed his interim and final reports. The Sub-Court purportedly executed the sale deed on 09.04.1981 through the officer of the Court and a delivery receipt dated 26.09.1981 was issued to Respondent.
6. The controversy insofar as the present case is concerned arose from a suit filed by the Respondent, being O.S. No.14 of 1984 before the Court of District Munsif, Chengalpattu against the Appellant praying for declaration of title and delivery in her favour to the extent of 0.08 cents of the land and delivery of the same. The suit was predicated inter alia on a rationale that the Respondent had taken possession of 50 acres by way of the execution proceedings, and that the Appellant had trespassed over 0.08 cents of the same. The suit was, however, dismissed on 07.09.1988 as the trial court formed an opinion that the Respondent
(1) It is not necessary to go into issue of adverse possession as both parties are claiming title.(2) Decree could not have been obtained behind back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when transactio....
The court upheld the dismissal of a specific performance suit due to lack of precise property description and finding it time-barred.
The plaintiff must prove the execution of the contract and her readiness to perform to be entitled to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, and the mere registration of a document does ....
Plaintiff can amend the plaint to claim possession based on a Survey Commissioner's report when the title of the defendant is not obstinate against clear evidence.
The court held that a title deed must be substantiated with clear evidence, and the Survey Commissioner's findings are critical in resolving land disputes.
Relief in civil suits must be strictly based on pleadings, and a plaintiff cannot obtain a decree for a different parcel of land than that specified in the suit.
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
