LexINDIRA DEVI versus VEENA GUPTA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R. INDIRA DEVI v. VEENA GUPTA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2014) JULY 04, 2023 [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] Deeds and Documents – Sale deed – Whether the vendor can assign the right contained in a sale deed to get the property registered back or the right being personal cannot be assigned – Held: No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document – Condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so – Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable – The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature – In the present case, there was no term in the conditional Sale Deed which debarred its assignment to any other person – The clause only mentioned regarding right of repurchase – The option was given to the vendors with the obligations on the vendee – No error in the judgment of the High Court – Contract. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so. Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable. The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature. The assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without the consent of the other party. No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document. The benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to the person on whom the obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge. If the facts of the case in hand are considered, there is no term in the conditional Sale Deed which debars its assignment to any other person. The clause only mentions regarding right of repurchase. The option is given to the vendors with the obligations on the 372 [2023] 10 S.C.R. 372 : 2023 INSC 593 A B C D E F G H 373 vendee. The right to repurchase in the present case has been assigned by KLS (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. Even the argument raised by counsel for the appellant that such an assignment of a right cannot be treated as a gift as consideration money is involved, is also noticed and rejected for the reason that the executor of the Gift Deed i.e KLS (now deceased) had transferred his right to repurchase the property in favour of respondent no.1. That right could always be assigned by him with whatever conditions attached to it. Further in the suit filed, he was also a plaintiff, who died later. No error in the judgment of the High Court. [Paras 21-24][385-G-H; 386-A-E] Bhoju Mandal and Ors. vs. Debnath Bhagat and Ors. 1963 Supp (2) SCR 82 – held inapplicable. T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar vs. M. Satyanarayana Rao and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 740 : [1993] 2 SCR 888; Shyam Singh vs. Daryao Singh (dead) by LRs and Ors (2003) 12 SCC 160 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 784 – relied on. Kapilaben and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth, through POA Gopal Bhai Madhusudan Patel and Ors (2020) 20 SCC 648 – referred to. Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Naykar AIR 1928 PC 174 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1963] Supp (2) SCR 82 held inapplicable Para 6 (2020) 20 SCC 648 referred to Para 6 [1993] 2 SCR 888 relied on Para 8 [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 784 relied on Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2013 of the High Court of Patna in SA No.123 of 2000. INDIRA DEVI v. VEENA GUPTA & ORS. A B C D E F G H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Farrukh Rasheed, Ashish Sharma, Abu Bakr Sabbaq, Mahesh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. Yadav Narender Singh, Rahul Shukla, Ms. Eshita Baruah, Ms. Sayantani Basak, Ms. Kanchan Dahiya, Ms. Bachita B. Shukla, Rahul Pratap, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 exclusi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.