RAJPAL SINGH versus SAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 18-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 202
202
RAJPAL SINGH
v.
SAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2022)
MAY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Specific Performance: Agreement to sell – Cancellation of
sale deed – Limitation period – Respondentno. 2-original owner
agreed to sell his agricultural land to appellant-purchaser for the
sale consideration – Before the execution of the sale deed, a
declaration decree was obtained by the wife of the respondent no.
2 against the respondent no. 2 whereby she was declared the owner
of the land, however, this was not brought to the notice of the
appellant nor there was mutation in the revenue record – Thereafter,
respondent no. 2 executed registered sale deed in favour of appellant
and its name was entered in the revenue records – Appellant
remained in possession and since then is cultivating the land – After
5 years, the wife of the respondent no. 2 filed a suit seeking
cancellation of sale deed in respect of the suit property on the basis
of the declaratory decree obtained by her – Trial court decreed the
suit, declaring that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was
illegal and nullity as the respondent no. 2 had no title over the land
when he executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant – However,
the first appellate set aside the decree – In appeal, the High Court
restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court – On
appeal, held: Suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the wife of
the respondent no. 2 was clearly barred by law as it was required to
be filed within the period of three years from the date of the
knowledge of the sale deed – Relief for possession is a consequential
prayer and the substantive prayer was of cancellation of the Sale
Deed and thus, the limitation period is required to be considered
with respect to the substantive relief claimed and not the
consequential relief–When composite suit is filed for cancellation
of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, the
limitation period is to be considered with respect to the substantive
relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years
from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
cancelled – Suit filed by the wife of the respondent no. 2 for
cancellation of the sale deed, can be said to be a substantive thus,
the same was clearly barred by limitation–Hence, the suit ought to
have been dismissed on the ground of limitation –Appellant can be
said to be a bona fide purchaser and that the decree obtained by
the wife of the respondent no. 2 was a collusive decree – When the
wife of the respondent no. 2 obtained the collusive decree,there
was already an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant and
subsequently appellant paid the entire balance sale consideration,
which was accepted by the respondent no. 2–High Court failed to
consider all these aspects – Thus, the judgment and order of the
High Court is unsustainable and is set aside and that of the first
appellate court is restored and the suit filed by the wife of the
respondent no. 2 is dismissed – Limitation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3489
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.4594 of 2009 (O&M).
Ankur Mittal, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rudra Pratap, Talha A. Rahman, Shyam D. Nandan, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in Second Appeal No. 4594 of 2009 by which
the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original
plaintiff and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed
by the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for specific performance
and restoring the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court
dismissing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the
original respondent No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 That the respondent No.2 herein – original defendant No.2
was the owner of the property in question being in the nature of
agricultural land. The original owner – original defendant No.2 entered
RAJPAL SINGH v. SAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LR

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