R.K. MOHAMMED UBAIDULLAH AND ORS. versus HAJEE C. ABDUL WAHAB (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 18-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.K,. MOHAMMED UBAIDULLAH AND ORS. 
v. 
HAJEE C. ARDUL WAHAB (DEAD) BY LRS. 
'1 
JULY 18, 2000 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
Section J9(b)-Prior agreement to sell the suit premises between 
C Defendant No. I and plaintiff after taking advance payment-Sale deed to 
be executed within 90 days after payment of entire sale consideration-Later 
same suit premises was sold to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by Defendant No. /-
Suit for specific performance by plaintiff-Decreed by the trial court and 
upheld by the High Court-On appeal, held, Section /9(b) protects the bona 
D fide purchaser in good faith without notice of the original contract-In view 
of Section 19(b) and definition of "notice" under Transfer of Property Act, 
it is rightly held by the trial court as well as by the High Court that 
Defendants 2 to 5 were not bona fide purchasers in good faith for value 
without notice of the original contact-Pena/ Code, 1860, Section 52-
General Clauses Act, 1897-Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3 
E Explanation 11. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
Notice-meaning of-In the context of Section 3, Explanation 11 of the 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
Good faith-Meaning of-Section 3 (22) of the General Clauses Act, 
1897. 
Defendant No. 1 (D-1) agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff 
for a sum of Rs. SS,000 i!nd accordingly D-1 executed an agreement dated 
G 27.07.1971 having received a sum of Rs. 10,000. It was agreed that D-1 would 
execute the sale deed witl\in 90 days from the date of the agreement after 
receiving the balance of s~e price of Rs. 45,000. The Plaintiff was always 
ready and willing to perform bis part of the contract, but D-1 refused to execute 
the sale deed even after receiving notice from the plaintiff taking a stand that 
H the plaintiff had issued a notice to execute the sale deed before the expiry of 
524 
R.K. MOHAMMED UBAIDULLAH v. HAJEE C. ABDUL WAHAB 
525 
90 days fixed under the agreement only to create litigation. D-1 dishonestly A 
sold the suit property to defendants 2 to 4 and the husband of the defendant 
No. S by way of a registered sale deed executed on 09.11.1971. The plaintiff 
thus filed a suit against D-1 to D-S for specific performance and other reliefs. 
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the ground 
that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; B 
and that D-1 to D-S were not entitled to claim title to the suit property on the 
ground that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the 
prior agreement However, trial court also held that until the plaintiff acquired 
the title by means of a document, he is not entitled to seek for a decree for 
mesne profits and damages. D-1 to D-S filed an appeal before the High Court C 
and cross objections were also filed by the plaintiff. However, the appeal as 
well as the cross-objection were dismissed by the High Court. Hence this 
appeal by D-2 to D-S. The D-1 who was Respondent No. 2. in the appeal was 
deleted as respondent on the appellants giving up. 
It was contended by D-2 to D-S that they were uonafide purchaser of D 
the suit property for value without notice of the prior agreement executed in 
favour of the plaintiff; that the courts below failed to see that the plaintiff was 
not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement; that no notice was 
issued by the plaintiff to defendants 2 to S not to purchase the suit property 
on the ground that there was prior agreement to sell the property in his favour; 
and that the courts below committed an error in concluding that defendants 2 E 
to Shad notice of the prior agreement on the basis that they had overheard 
telephonic conversation between the plaintiff and the husband of defendant 
No.I 
Dismissing the appeal with costs, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is not uncommon that where a tenant is in possession of 
the property, that too for a long time, using it for business purpose, he would 
always like to purchase the property getting all advantages if it is offered for 
sale. Normally the landlord or owner of the property would also be interested 
F 
in selling the property to a person in possession if a reasonable price is given G 
to avoid litigation and to have smooth transaction. In such a situation the 
appellant purchasers would have made an inquiry with the respondent-plaintiff 
about the nature of his possession and title under which he is in p

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