Back
Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR & M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Nanak Builders & Investors P.Ltd. & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24159 of 2009)
Decided On : 21-02-2013
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 1 Rule 10–Specific Relief Act, 1963–Section 19–Transfer of Property Act, 1882–Section 52–Suit for specific performance cannot be enforced against a person who is a transferee from vendor for valuable consideration and without notice of original contract which is sought to be enforced in suit–Appellant is transferee pendente lite–Appellant entered into a clandestine transaction with defendant and got property transferred in their favour–Appellant cannot be held to be a bonafide purchaser, without notice–Decree for specific performance of a contract may be enforced against a person claimed under plaintiff, and title acquired subsequent to contract–In facts and circumstances of case and also for ends of justice appellant is to be added as party defendant in suit–Impugned orders passed by High Court set aside–Appeal allowed. (Paras 24, 28, 31, 35, 37 and 42)
2005 (6) SCC 733; 2012 (8) SCC 384; (1995)6 SCC 50; (1999)2 SCC 577; (1996)10 SCC 53; AIR (35) 1948; AIR 1970 SC 1717; AIR 1973 SC 2537; 1992 (2) SCC 524; AIR (1954)SC 75; (1971)SC 1238; (1973)SC 655–Relied.
(1995)3 SCC 147; AIR 1931 Calcutta 67; (1967 (2) SCR 18); 1973 (1) SCR 139–Referred.
Per T.S. Thakur, J. (Concurring View)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882–Section 52–Specific Relief Act, 1963–Section 19(b)–Lis Pendens–Sale of immovable property in teeth of an earlier agreement to sell is immune from specific performance of an earlier contract of sale only if transferee has acquired title for valuable consideration, in good faith and without notice of the original contract–Appellant was not protected against specific performance of contract in favour of plaintiff, 'for even though transfer in favour of appellant was for valuable consideration it was not in good faith nor was it without notice of original contract–However, transfer pendente lite is not illegal ipso jure but remains subservient to pending litigation. (Paras 3 to 7)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10–Specific Relief Act, 1963–Section 19–Impleadment as defendants in suit for specific performance of contract–Appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and is not protected against specific performance of contract between plaintiffs and owner defendants in suit–However, since appellant has purchased the entire estate that forms subject matter of suit, appellant is entitled to be added as a party defendant to suit–Appellant shall raise and pursue only such defenses as were available and taken by original defendants and none other. (Paras 8 to 12)
AIR 1856 SC 593; (2010)8 SCC 1; (2012)7 SCC 738; (1972)2 SCC 200; (1983)1 SCC 18; (2005)11 SCC 403; 1976) 1 SCC 103–Relied.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
Judgment :-
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the division bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 295 of 2008 affirming the order of the Single Judge and rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment as defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract being Suit No. 3426 of 1991 filed by plaintiff-Respondent No.1.
3. Although the case has a chequered history, the brief facts of the case can be summarized as under :-
4. Mrs. Lakhbir Sawhney, Respondent No. 2 and son Mr. H.S. Sawhney, the predecessor of Respondent No. 3 (a) to (d) were the owners of the property known as “Ojha House” / “Sawhney Mansion”, F-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. (These respondents shall be referred as “the Sawhneys” for the sake of convenience). M/s Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the Suit. The plaintiff-Respondent No.1 filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi being Suit No. 3426 of 1991 against the defendants-respondents Sawhneys’ for a decree for specific performance of agreement. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that on 29.05.1986 the defendant-respondent entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent for sale of an area measuring about 4000 sq.ft. on the 1st Floor of F-26, Connaught Place, New Delhi on the consideration of Rs.50 lakhs. Out of the said consideration, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants vide cheque no. 0534224 drawn from Union Bank of India, New Delhi. The aforesaid property shall be referred to as the “suit property” which was in the tenancy of M/s Peerless General Finance Company Limited. In the said agreement it was agreed inter alia that if the premises is vacated and the plaintiff did not complete the sale on the defendant, getting all permissions, sanctions etc., the defendant shall have the right to forfeit the money. Plantiff’s further case was that M/s Peerless General Finance Company Limited has given a security deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs approximately and did not vacate the premises and called upon the defendants that they will vacate the premises only when the defendants make the payment, that too on the expiry of the lease which expired around September, 1990. It is alleged by the plaintiff that during the intervening period, it has been making part payments from time to time out of the said consideration amount. In May 1991, the defendants got the said suit premises vacated from M/s Peerless General Finance Company Limited. The plaintiffs have immediately approached the defendants to receive the balance consideration but the same was avoided by the defendant. A public notice was, therefore, issued in ‘The Hindustan Times’, New Delhi so that the defendants ‘Sawhneys’ do not sell, transfer or alienate the said property to any other person. Lastly, it was alleged by the plaintiff that despite being always ready and willing to complete the transaction, the defendant avoided to obtain requisite permission /sanction and clearance, hence the suit was filed. During the intervening period some more development took place. One Living Media India Limited, (in short LMI), said to be a group company of the Appellant M/s Thomson Press (India) Limited offered the defendant-respondent to take the suit premises on lease, some time in the year 1988. The defendants Sawhneys’ assured the LMI that lease would be granted after M/s Peerless vacated the suit property. LMI, accordingly, sent a cheque to the defendants-Sawhneys’ as earnest money in respect of the lease. However, when Sawhneys’ wanted to resile from the agreed terms with LMI, a suit was filed by LMI being Suit No. 2872 of 1990 against Sawhneys’ in Delhi High Court for perpetual injunction restraining the Sawhneys’ from parting with possession of the premises to any third party. The High Court passed the restrain order on 19.09.1990 with regard to the suit property and appointed a commissione
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
