Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
Mohideen Sahib - Appellant
Versus
A. Amena Bi & Others - Respondents
S.A. No.1550 of 1994
Decided On : 18 December 2006
specific performance - sale agreement - Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act - Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act - [Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act in the context of a sale agreement for specific performance. The court emphasized the onus of proof of good faith on the purchaser and the requirement for due care and attention in relation to good faith. It also highlighted the need for a purchaser to be more vigilant and diligent in enquiring about the ownership and title of the property, and the significance of constructive notice in property transactions. The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the fourth defendant had notice of the earlier transaction and was not a bona fide purchaser, leading to the allowance of the relief of specific performance for the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 01.07.1989 for a property. The defendants denied the agreement and claimed that the property did not belong to them at the time of the agreement. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not proved that the fourth defendant had knowledge of the paper publication and dismissed the Suit. The First Appellate court upheld this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fourth defendant had notice of the earlier transaction and was not a bona fide purchaser, allowing the relief of specific performance for the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance in view of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the fourth defendant had notice of the earlier transaction and was not a bona fide purchaser, leading to the allowance of the relief of specific performance for the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower courts and allowed the Appeal, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for by him. The defendants 1 to 3 were directed to compensate the sale consideration received under the sale deed to the fourth defendant.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff, who filed a Suit for specific performance of agreement dated 01.07.1989 and lost his case in the First Appellate court as well, is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the plaintiff; in brief, is that the defendants 1 to 3 before the Trial Court who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, entered into a sale agreement dated 01.07.1989 with him for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.3,240/- and the said consideration was also received by them, agreeing to execute the Sale Deed within a period of one year. On knowing that the defendants 1 to 3 tried to alienate the suit property, the plaintiff issued an advertisement on 07.08.1989 in `Maalai Murasu' daily. Subsequently, having known that the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the suit property to the fourth defendant, the plaintiff filed the Suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 01.07.1989.
3. In their written statement, the defendants I to 3, first of all denied the agreement dated 01.07.1989. It was their case that the suit property did not belong to them on 01.07.1989 and it belonged to one Abdul Razak, the husband of the first defendant. According to them, they had approached the plaintiff for a loan for which he insisted upon them to give the suit property as security and it was only for that purpose, they executed a document even without knowing about the recitals in the document. It was their further case that only after receipt of notice in the Suit, they came to know that the document which they executed was a sale deed and they had no knowledge of the paper advertisement when they sold the property to the fourth defendant for a valuable consideration.
4. Similarly, the fourth defendant too, filed his written statement stating that he did not have any knowledge of the paper advertisement and that he purchased the suit property for Rs.5,000/- only as a bona fide purchaser.
5. On the side of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as P.W.1 besides marking eight documents. On the side of the defendants, the second and fourth defendants were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively and no exhibit was marked on their side.
6. The Trial Court, on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, framed four issues and holding that the plaintiff had not proved sufficiently to the effect that the fourth defendant had knowledge of the paper publication, further held that the plaintiff is entitled to pet Rs.3,240/-from the defendants 1 to 3 and dismissed the Suit in other respects and this finding of the Trial Court was upheld by the First Appellate court, against which the present Second Appeal.
7. This Court, on 12.01.1995, admitted the present Second Appeal on the substantial question of law as to whether the approach of the Courts below in negativing the claim of specific performance is justifiable in view of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act.
8. Mr. Devaraj, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that the appellant/plaintiff has effected publication under Ex.A.2 dated 07.08.1989 in Maalai Murasu, a popular evening daily having wide circulation in Trichy and despite that, the fourth respondent had purchased the suit property at his own risk and he had failed to exercise care and diligence to know about the title of the suit property which is mandated under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is his further contention that the fourth defendant has stated neither in his pleadings nor in his evidence that he had made enquiry before his purchase and mere statement to the effect that he was not aware of the earlier proceedings is not suffice to prove his case of bona fide purchaser as per Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. In this context, he has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & others v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) by LRs. and Others, 2000 (3) LW 675 in the case of wherein it was held as under: (paras 15 and 16)
"As can be seen from Secti
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
