Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Misra, J.
DINESH CHANDRA GUHA - Appellant
Versus
SATCHIDANANDA MUKHERJI - Respondent
Second Appeal 210 Of 1968
Decided On : JANUARY 04, 1972
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT FOR SALE - SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 27(B) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - FINDING OF FACT - SECTION 103 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - CONSIDERATION - PAYMENT - ENDORSEMENT BY SUB-REGISTRAR - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 60(2) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT - ADMISSION IN WRITTEN STATEMENT - EVIDENCE OF VENDOR AND SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER - NO REBUTTAL EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of property. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the original owners of the property, had sold it to defendant No. 4, who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff's contract. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant No. 4 was a subsequent purchaser with notice of the previous contract. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the burden of proof was on defendant No. 4 to establish the circumstances mentioned in Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, in order to retain the benefit of the transfer in his favour. However, the High Court found that the lower appellate court had considered the evidence and arrived at a finding that defendant No. 4 was a purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff's contract. The High Court also found that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish the actual payment of consideration under the sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4.
Issues: 1. Whether the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove that the subsequent purchaser had notice of the contract? 2. Whether the subsequent transferee has to prove the circumstances which will permit him to retain the benefit obtained under the sale? 3. Whether the subsequent purchaser is a purchaser for value who actually paid consideration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The onus rests on the subsequent transferee to prove the circumstances which will allow him to retain the benefit obtained under the sale. 2. Yes, the subsequent transferee has to prove the circumstances which will permit him to retain the benefit obtained under the sale. 3. Yes, the subsequent purchaser is a purchaser for value who actually paid consideration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
A. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. Originally, plaintiff prayed for specific performance of contract in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and b of the plaint, both of which are situate in Puri town. In the trial court, the claim, so far it related to the A schedule property, was given up, and the plaintiff confirmed his claim to the B schedule. Necessarily the subject-matter of this appeal relates to the B schedule property only.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief is as follows: The disputed properties originally belonged to Umananda, Rhagendranath and others. In a partition suit of 1923, the a schedule land fell to the share of Khagendranath and his two brothers and the B schedule to Umananda. Thereafter, Umananda mortgaged the B schedule property to Nagendranath Mukherji, father of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. On 11-1-1935. Umananda sold a portion of the said land to one Kamalabala Dasi who in her turn sold the same to the original defendant No. 4 who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court and was substituted by his legal representatives. The mortgagee filed Mortgage Suit No. 8 of 1940 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Burdwan and obtained a preliminary decree which was made final. In execution of the said decree in Ex. Case No. 27 of 1949, the property was sold and purchased by the mortgagee-decree-holders on 7-5-1951 and 8-5-1951. Plaintiff-appellant, it is stated, was interested in bidding at the auction sale, but was dissuaded by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from doing so on their assurance that they would sell the property to him. Accordingly, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/ -. Out of the consideration, they received an advance of Rs. 800/- and promised to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance. As defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not execute the sale deed even after tender of the balance consideration, the plaintiff filed T. S. No. 58 of 1957 in the court of the Munsif Puri for obtaining specific performance of the contract. On 10-3-1958, parties agreed to compromise the suit and entered into the agreement marked Ex. 3 which was executed by defendant No. 1 for self and as power-of-attorney holder of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Under the terms of the compromise, it was agreed that the defendants will not proceed with the suit for partition of the properties which they had purchased in Ex. Case No. 27 of 1949 and the plaintiff would not proceed with the suit for specific performance which was pending in the court of the munsif, Puri. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 further agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- to the plaintiff, adjust the amount of Rs. 800/-which they had received on 11-3-1954 and on plaintiff paying the balance of Rs. 700/- to defendant No. 1 or their advocate by 2-1-1959, they would execute and register the sale deed by coming to Puri at the plaintiff's cost which was assessed at Rs. 30/ -. After this compromise containing the terms of the contract, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not turn up at Puri for recording the compromise till 8-1-1960, on which date, the compromise was recorded and the suit for specific performance was dismissed. It is alleged that both before and after 8-1-1960, plaintiff tendered the balance amount of Rs. 700/- to defendant No. 1 and called upon the defendants to execute and register the sale deed. Defendant No. 1 on some pretext or other avoided to comply and commenced negotiations with defendant No. 4 for sale of the B Schedule land. It is also stated that defendant No. 4 was looking after the limitation in T. S. No. 58 of 1957 and was fully aware of the contract. On these allegations, plaintiff sought specific performance against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and also against defendant No. 4, in case it is found that he has taken a sale
AI
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
