The Supreme Court stated that just because there are no clear boundary details for a property, it does not make a sales agreement unclear or impossible to enforce.
The Supreme Court noted that the lack of clear boundary details for a property does not make an agreement unclear or unenforceable. This statement came during a series of Civil Appeals filed by the Plaintiffs in a case for Specific Performance of a Contract, which challenged the High Court’s decision to overturn the Trial Court’s ruling and dismiss the case. The two-Judge Bench, consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, stated, “This Court has determined that a transferee during ongoing litigation is affected by the case’s outcome and can be included as a party, especially if the transfer occurred with awareness of the ongoing case and against an injunction. However, this case focuses on the enforceability of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990, which adequately describes the property with details like khasra numbers, area, and location. The lack of specific boundary details does not make the agreement unclear or unenforceable, as the property can be identified from the provided information.”
The issue involved Khasras bought through a registered Sale Deed from the previous owner for Rs. 7,000. The Appellants initiated separate Suits for Specific Performance in 1995 against the heirs of Sushila Devi. In the Plaint, the Defendants were the other heirs. Sushila owned the property in question and had entered into separate Agreements to Sell with each Appellant in 1990 after receiving full payment. The Appellants had taken actual possession of the agricultural land, having paid the complete sale amount, and were actively cultivating it.
The Defendants did not meet their legal duty to sign the Sale Deed for the Appellants and instead requested a mutation, which the Revenue Authority approved. When the suits were filed, the Trial Court issued a temporary injunction to prevent any transfer of the disputed property. Later, the Trial Court ruled in favor of all the Suits, prompting the Defendants to appeal to the High Court. The High Court accepted the appeal, overturned the Trial Court’s decision, and dismissed the Suits. Dissatisfied, the Appellants took their case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that a buyer who has paid in full and received the original title deeds would typically take possession. Any possession by another party afterward would be unauthorized and illegal.
The Court further stated that the High Court’s conclusion about the Plaintiff not being in possession, which led to the Suit being dismissed, is not valid. It highlighted that the Plaintiffs had been in possession of the property since the Agreement to Sell was made, actively farming it and paying land taxes, which goes against the Respondents’ claim that Sushila Devi and her heirs retained possession. Regarding the sale deeds executed while the suit was ongoing, the Court noted that while these transfers are not automatically void, they are affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and cannot harm the Plaintiffs’ rights under the earlier Agreement to Sell. The Court also pointed out that although the Respondents claim the Sale Deeds are not void but need to be judged, the Doctrine of Lis Pendens protects the Plaintiffs’ prior contractual rights.
The Court stated that if someone claims fraud or that a transaction is benami, it is their responsibility to prove it. The Court pointed out that a document’s obvious meaning is assumed to be correct unless the claiming party can prove otherwise. The responsibility does not fall on the party using the document to show its validity beyond what is written. The Court also noted that later buyers and intervenors, who bought the property from others, will only have the rights of their sellers. If the sellers had no rights, then the buyers cannot claim to be in a better position. As a result, the Apex Court accepted the Appeals, overturned the High Court’s decision, and reinstated the Trial Court’s ruling.
Cause Title: Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 865)
