SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 605

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Indira Devi – Appellant
Versus
Veena Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2014
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR Mr. Abu Bakr Sabbaq, Adv. Mr. Ashish Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR Mr. Rahul Pratap, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to Sell – Condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to vendor unless terms in documents specifically state so – Such a right can always be assigned and contract containing such condition shall be enforceable.

Headnote:

Agreement to Sell – Conditional sale deed – Right of vendor to assign right contained in a sale deed to get property registered back – Condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to vendor unless terms in documents specifically state so – Such a right can always be assigned and contract containing such condition shall be enforceable – Only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature – Assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without consent of other party – No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document – Benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to person on whom obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:

Primary issue which requires consideration in present appeal is as to whether vendor can assign right contained in a sale deed to get property registered back or right being personal cannot be assigned.

Findings of Court:

Option is given to vendors with obligations on the vendee. Right to repurchase in the present case has been assigned by Kishori Lal Sahu (now deceased) in favour of respondent no.1 who is none else than his daughter-in-law to whom other properties have also been gifted.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The appellant herein has challenged the order dated September 26, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No. 123 of 2000.

2. The facts of the case available on record are being noticed here. Kaleshwar Prasad Singh was inducted as a tenant in the property in question by late Kishori Lal Sahu who was the exclusive owner thereof. He along with his son executed a conditional sale deed dated 5.8.1977 in favour of Indira Devi d/o Kaleshwar Prasad Singh. It was mentioned in the sale deed that vendors were in dire need of money, hence, with the consent of family members, conditional sale deed was being executed in favour of the vendee for a total sale consideration of Rs.5000/-. The condition in sale deed was that in case the vendors return the full consideration amount to the vendee by July, 1984, the vendee would return the property by means of a registered sale deed at the cost of the vendors. In case, the vendors fail to pay the consideration money within the stipulated time, the vendee will become exclusive owner of the property. Till then the vendee would not deal with the property in any manner whatsoever.

3. Late Kishori Lal Sahu executed a registered gift deed dated 14.02.1983 in favour of his daughter-in-law, Veena Gupta w/o Gopal Prasad. The description of the property was detailed out in the Gift Deed, wherein it was stated that the executant was old and the beneficiary was taking care of him, hence the properties are being gifted to her. Number of properties were gifted. It was mentioned therein that the property as mentioned at column no. 5 therein was transferred to Indira Devi by way of registered sale deed dated 5.8.1977, which can be purchased back by Veena Gupta from Indira Devi.

4. The vendors were ready and willing to return Rs.5000/- to the vendee to get the sale deed registered back in their name but the vendee was not agreeing to the same. The civil suit was filed by the respondent no.1 along with Kishori Lal Sahu (now deceased) in 1983. The prayer in the suit was for a direction to the appellant to accept Rs.5000/- as consideration money and execute sale deed in favour of respondent no.1 in respect of the house as mentioned in the suit. On failure, decree be passed directing appellant to register the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1, the first plaintiff and as a consequence, the plaintiffs be put in possession of the property in question. In the alternative, the prayer was that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between Kishori Lal Sahu (non deceased), the second plaintiff and Kaleshwar Prasad Singh, the first defendant. A decree of eviction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground of personal necessity and non payment of rent and the possession be got delivered. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.9.1986 dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was upheld by the lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 27.1.2000. In second appeal filed by the respondents, the judgments of the courts below were reversed by the High Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2013. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

    “(i) Whether the courts below committed error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on wrong approach and on consideration of an issue which was not material for the purpose of adjudication of the suit?

    (ii) Whether the courts below committed error in not considering the main issues involved in the suit regarding character and construction in respect of the deed impugned?

    (iii) Whether the courts below committed error in not considering the issue of merger of tenancy to the ownership as is relevant in the deed of sale?”

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS

5. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that late Kishori Lal Sahu executed the conditional sale deed along with his son in favour Indira Devi on 5.8.1977. He had no right to assign his right to repur


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top