WAHEED BAIG versus SANGI LAKSHMAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 21-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 726 
A 
WAHEED BAIG 
... 
v. 
... 
SANGI LAKSHMAMMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1055 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 21, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 13 -
Suit for specific 
performance of agreement of sale - In respect of the property 
c allotted to the alleged vendor by Government - Suit decreed 
- Set aside by first appellate court - In second appeal, High 
Court confirming the decree and directing the Government 
Department to transfer the property in favour of the alleged 
vendor and then to transfer the same to the vendee as per the 
D agreement - On appe'll, held : The agreement was •wll and 
void -
The property vested with the Government and the . 
allottee thereof had no alienable right thereto - Direction of 
the High Court is not correct- Second appeal was incompetent 
as the questions formulated by High Court were not questions 
E of law - Direction to refund the consideration amount to the 
vendee - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. 
Predecessor of respondents filed a suit for specific 
performance of agreements of sale (Exbts. A-1 and A-4). 
In the alternative it demanded refund of the amount paid 
F towards sale consideration. Case of the plaintiff was that 
defendant No.1 - appellant was in occupation of the suit 
house as a tenant under the Subsidised Industrial 
Housing Scheme allotted to him by defendant No.2. 
Defendant appellant first leased out the major portion of 
G the house to the plaintiff and thereafter entered into an 
agreement for Sale (Exbt. A.1) with him. Since the 
agreement was not concluded within stipulated time, the 
same was ratified by another agreement of Sale (Exbt. A.4). 
as per Exbt. A-4, apart from the consideration amount as 
H 
726 
.. 
WAHEED BAIG v. SANGI LAKSHMAMMA & ORS. 
727 
agreed by Exbt. A-1, plaintiff was also required to pay the A 
remaining instalments of the hire-purchase amount due 
to the Commissioner of Labour. Plaintiff made payment 
towards the full discharge of the hire purchase amount 
on behalf of the defendant - appellant. Apart from that, 
plaintiff also paid the balance amount towards B 
consideration. Appellant - defendant contested the suit 
on the ground that he was merely a lessee and not the 
owner of the suit property, he had no right to alienate the 
property and that the agreement was not an agreement 
of sale, but was for the purpose of a collateral security. c 
Trial Court decreed the suit. In the first appeal, the decree 
was set aside. High Court, in second appeal, confirmed 
the decree passed by trial court and directed defendant 
No.2 to the Labour Department to transfer the property in 
favour of the appellant-defendant and thereafter transfer 0 
the same to the respondent-plaintiff. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court is 
indefensible and deserves to be set aside. The direction E 
given by the first appellate Court for refund of the amount 
paid stands restored. The High Court could not have 
directed transfer of the property in favour of the appellant 
and thereafter directing him to transfer the property by 
giving full effect to the agreement for sale. Such a course 
F 
is unknown in law. [Paras 11, 12 and 4] [739-8, C; 735-F] 
1.2 Section 13 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with 
rights of a purchaser in certain cases, where a person 
contracts to sell or let certain immovable property having G 
no title or only an imperfect title. These rights enable the. 
purchaser to take action when title of vender is bettered 
in the circumstances given in this Section. The vender is 
under a duty to prove his title and to convey. what he has 
contracted to convey. The Section gives right to purchaser H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R 
A in the event there is a defect in title as enumerated in 
Clauses (a) to (d) to compel the vender to convey the title 
or to secure the concurrence or conveyance or to redeem 
the mortgage etc. as the case may be. [Para 1 O] [738-A, B] 
1.3 In the instant case the Labour Department was 
8 not a party to the agreement. It was not bound to sell the 
property to the appellant. The land belonged to the 
Government and the land in question was given on lease 
cum sale agreement basis by the Labour Department. 
There was a clear stipulation that the lessee is not the 
C owner of the property and did not have any right to sell or 
mortgage or otherwise to dispose of the

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