Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran S., Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, AOR Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T. Archana, Adv.

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 (!) , (!) , (!) .

How to determine validity of a decree for specific performance when a bona fide purchaser exists?

What is the effect of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on enforceability against transferees who paid in good faith without notice?

What are the proper framing and requirement of substantial questions of law under Section 100 of CPC in a second appeal?