MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. versus KARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 09-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 396 : 2024 INSC 491
Maharaj Singh & Ors. 
v. 
Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6782 of 2013)
09 July 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol,JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Can the contention that the suit agreement was sham and bogus 
and not intended to be acted upon be allowed to be raised 
notwithstanding Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act; Was the 
suit agreement sham and bogus and not intended to be acted upon; 
Were the second to fourth defendants bona fide purchasers for 
value without notice of the suit agreement; Whether, in view of the 
decision of Supreme Court in B. Vijaya Bharathi, the plaintiffs were 
not entitled to a decree of specific performance in the absence of 
any prayer for cancellation of the two subsequent sale deeds; Do 
the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act create a bar on the 
execution of the sale deed in terms of the suit agreement; Whether 
the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of specific performance.
Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.19(b) – Relief against parties and 
persons claiming under them by subsequent title – Defendants-
subsequent purchasers claimed under the sale deeds executed 
after the execution of the suit agreement, if can be subjected 
to decree of specific performance – Plea of the defendants that 
in view of the decision in B. Vijaya Bharathi case, plaintiffs 
not entitled to decree of specific performance in the absence 
of prayer for cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds:
Held: In two Judges bench decision in B. Vijaya Bharathi, the 
attention of the Bench was not invited to binding precedent of larger 
bench in Lala Durga Prasad & Ors. – Hence, the decision in the 
case of B. Vijaya Bharathi is not a binding precedent and there 
was no requirement to make a prayer in the plaint for cancellation 
or setting aside the subsequent sale deeds – Furthermore, in view 
of s.19(b), the defendants claiming under the sale deeds executed 
after the execution of the suit agreement can be subjected to a 
decree of specific performance as the suit agreement can be 
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
397
Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
enforced specifically against such defendants unless they are 
bona-fide purchasers without the notice of the original contract – 
When, the defendants-subsequent purchasers fail to prove that 
they entered into the sale deed in good faith and without notice 
of the suit agreement, in view of s.19(b), a decree for specific 
performance can be passed against such defendants – Therefore, 
in such a case where s.19(b) is applicable, under the decree of 
specific performance, the subsequent purchasers can be directed 
to execute the sale deed along with the original vendor – There is 
no necessity to pray for the cancellation of the subsequent sale 
deeds – There are concurrent findings of the three Courts on the 
issue of the readiness and willingness shown by the first plaintiff – 
No reason to disturb the said findings – However, as the second 
plaintiff was not interested in getting the specific performance, the 
decree ought to have been restricted to the undivided one-half share 
in the suit property in favour of only the first plaintiff – Impugned 
decree modified. [Paras 15, 16, 19-21]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.91, 92:
Held: s.91 excludes oral evidence of the terms of the written 
document by requiring those terms to be proved by the document 
itself – s.92 excludes oral evidence for contradicting, varying, adding 
to or subtracting to such terms – These sections do not prevent 
parties from adducing evidence on the issue of whether the parties 
to the documents had agreed to contract on the terms set forth in the 
document – In the present case, the contention that the deceased-
first defendant was addicted to vices was never raised in the written 
statements and the same has come by way of an afterthought in 
the evidence of the mother of the first defendant – Moreover, the 
stand of the defendants in their written statement is that the suit 
agreement was forged – Therefore, on facts, the contention that 
the suit agreement was got executed from the first defendant with 
the object to deter him from selling the suit property to meet the 
demands of his bad lifestyle cannot be accepted – Hence, the suit 
agreement cannot be held as bogus or sham. [Para 12]
Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976 – 
Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(v) – Transfer of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.