SEETHAKATHI TRUST MADRAS versus KRISHNAVENI

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 17-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 322
322
SEETHAKATHI TRUST MADRAS
v.
KRISHNAVENI
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5384-5385 of 2014)
JANUARY 17, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.19(b) – A previous suit filed by
respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale of land
was decreed and pursuant thereto, execution proceedings were
commenced – Surveyor was appointed by executing court to
demarcate 50 acres of land – Executing court executed sale deed –
Respondent filed suit against appellant praying for declaration of
title and delivery in her favour to the extent of 0.08 cents of the
land on the ground that the respondent took possession of 50 acres
by way of execution proceedings and that the appellant had
trespassed over 0.08 cents of the same – Respondent did not appear
in witness box and manager who appeared on behalf of respondent
deposed that he was not authorised by respondent to conduct the
case – The manager deposed that he was aware of the sale of the
suit land in favour of third person – Subsequent purchaser was not
impleaded – Suit was dismissed by trial court and first appellate
court – High Court held that courts below did not appreciate the
evidence particularly with respect to the execution proceedings –
On appeal, held: Respondent was fully aware of the prior registered
transaction in respect of the same property originally in favour of
‘N’ – This was as per the deposition of her manager – In such a
scenario, it was not possible to accept that a decree could have
been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so
when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the
suit for specific performance – The second vital aspect was that the
Respondent did not even step into the witness box to depose to the
facts – It was the manager who stepped into the witness box that
too without producing any proper authorisation – What he deposed
in a way ran contrary to the interest of the Respondent as it was
accepted that there was knowledge of the transaction with respect
to the same land between third parties and yet the Respondent chose
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
not to implead the purchasers as parties to the suit – Thus, the
endeavour was to obtain a decree at the back of the real owners
and that is the reason, at least, in the execution proceedings that
the original vendor did not even come forward and the sale deed
had to be executed through the process of the Court – The case of
‘N’ and the subsequent purchasers including appellant fell within
the exception set out in s.19(b) being transferees who had paid
money in good faith and without notice of the original contract –
High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings
of the trial court and the first appellate court.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – If the question of law
is not framed at the stage of admission, it should be framed at least
before deciding the case.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The question of law ought to have been framed
under section 100 of CPC. Even if the question of law had not
been framed at the stage of admission, at least before deciding
the case the said question of law ought to have been framed.
[Para 22][331-D-E]
Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Ors. (2018) 4
SCC 562 : [2018] 4 SCC 562; Vidyadhar v. Manikrao
and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573 : [1999] 1 SCR 1168 –
relied on.
Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010)
10 SCC 512 : [2010] 12 SCR 515; Lachhman Dass v.
Jagat Ram and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 448 : [2007] 2
SCR 980 – referred to.
2. The Respondent was fully aware of the prior registered
transaction in respect of the same property originally in favour of
Niraja Devi. This is as per the deposition of her manager. In such
a scenario it is not possible to accept that a decree could have
been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so
when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of
the suit for specific performance. The second vital aspect insofar
as the case of the Respondent is concerned is that the
SEETHAKATHI TRUST MADRAS v. KRISHNAVENI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Respondent did not even step into the witness box to depose to
the facts. It is the manager who stepped into the witness box that
too without producing any proper authorisation. What he deposed
in a way ran contrary to the interest of the Respondent as it was
acce

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