LexMANJIT SINGH & ANR. versus DARSHANA DEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 876 : 2024 INSC 895 Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13066 of 2024) 21 November 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court held that the appellants-subsequent purchasers could not be said to be bona fide purchasers in accordance with Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the original defendant (owner of the suit property). Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.19(b) – General Clauses Act – s.3(22) – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.2(11) – “good faith” – Oral agreement for sale of the suit property between plaintiff and defendant (owner of the property) – However, despite the said agreement, the defendant transferred the suit property in favour of the appellants-subsequent purchasers – In Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff, High Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale holding that the appellants could not be said to be bona fide purchasers u/s.19(b) – Correctness: Held: Correct – Section 19 (b) of the Act, 1963 is an exception from the general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to prove that he purchased the property in good faith and also bona fide purchaser for value – For an act to have been done in good faith it must have been done with due care and attention and there should not be any negligence or dishonesty – Each aspect is a complement to the other and not an exclusion of the other – The definition of the Penal Code, 1860 emphasises due care and attention whereas General Clauses Act emphasises honesty – High Court committed no error in passing the impugned Judgment. [Paras 12, 15, 20] [2024] 11 S.C.R. 877 Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors. Case Law Cited R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 524 : (2000) 6 SCC 402; Ram Niwas v. Bano [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 39 : (2000) 6 SCC 685 – relied on. Kailas Etc., Works v. Munlity, B. & N., 1968 Bombay Law Reporter 554; The Municipality of Bhiwandi and Nizampur v. Kailash Sizing Works [1975] 2 SCR 123 : (1974) 2 SCC 596 – referred to. Daniels v. Davison' [(1809) 16 Ves Jun 249 : 33 ER 978] – referred to. List of Acts Specific Relief Act, 1963; General Clauses Act; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 19 (b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963; Oral agreement for sale of the suit property; Specific performance of oral agreement of sale; “good faith”; Subsequent purchasers; Exception from general rule; Onus on subsequent purchaser to prove that the property was purchased in good faith; bona fide purchaser for value; Due care and attention; Negligence or dishonesty; Honesty. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13066 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1145 of 1992 Appearances for Parties Vishal Mahajan, Anil Kumar, Ms. Reena Devi, Vinod Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Ms. Armaan Saggar, Dr. M.K. Ravi, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Sskhaira, Sunny Sachin Rawat, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 22-1-2019 878 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports in Regular Second Appeal No.1145/1992 by which the High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiff and thereby decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale of the year 1986. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under. 4. The Respondent No.1 – herein (original plaintiff) instituted suit for specific performance of contract based on an unregistered sale deed dated 12-02-1986 with respect to the suit property. 5. It appears from the materials on record that the original defendant No.1, i.e., the owner of the suit property after entering into an agreement with the plaintiff transferred the suit property in favour of the defendants Nos.2 and 3 respectively i.e., the appellants before us by way of a sale deed dated 29-8-1986. 6. In such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 - herein (original plaintiff) had to institute the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.