The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance of a 2001 land sale agreement, ruling that the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It nullified subsequent fraudulent sales under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens) and affirmed the court’s power to grant possession under Section 22 despite omitted pleadings. The judgment emphasized that mere price escalation cannot deny equitable relief and imposed an additional ₹25 lakh payment to balance interests. Collusive transactions were declared void, reinforcing protections against pendente lite transfers.
Facts Of The Case:
In 2001, Krishan Gopal (appellant) agreed to sell 9 acres of agricultural land in Punjab to Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons for ₹10 lakh under an Agreement to Sell, receiving ₹1 lakh as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 31 January 2002, but Krishan Gopal failed to appear. The buyers filed a suit for specific performance in April 2002, claiming they were ready to pay the balance and had taken possession (though the agreement implied otherwise). During the trial, Krishan Gopal revealed an order by the Tahsildar (May 2002) recognizing one Arun Kalia as the cultivator in possession. He also concealed that he had sold the land to Arun Kalia in May 2002 via registered sale deeds, who later sold it to Krishan Dev Pathak and his wife in 2012. The trial court decreed specific performance (2008), directing possession to the buyers, which was upheld in appeal. Meanwhile, Arun Kalia and the Pathaks objected in execution proceedings, alleging fraud, but their claims were rejected as pendente lite transfers under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding Krishan Gopal’s conduct dubious and imposing an additional ₹25 lakh payment to account for land price escalation while declaring the subsequent sales void.
Procedural History:
The case originated in 2002 when Gurmeet Kaur and her sons filed a suit for specific performance before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur, seeking enforcement of the 2001 sale agreement. The trial court decreed the suit in 2008, directing Krishan Gopal to execute the sale deed and deliver possession. Krishan Gopal appealed to the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which dismissed his appeal in 2011. He then filed a second appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was rejected in 2012, upholding the concurrent findings on readiness and willingness. Meanwhile, during execution proceedings, Arun Kalia and subsequent purchasers (Pathaks) filed objections under Section 47 CPC, alleging fraud, but the Executing Court rejected their plea in 2016. Their revision petition before the High Court was also dismissed. The matter reached the Supreme Court through two civil appeals—one by Krishan Gopal (against the decree) and another by Arun Kalia (against execution proceedings). The Supreme Court, in 2025, upheld the decree, dismissed objections, and modified the consideration to balance equities, finally settling the 24-year-old dispute.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules on Tenant Rights vs. Bank’s SARFAESI Powers
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while upholding the decree of specific performance. It noted that the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as evidenced by their financial capacity and conduct. The Court emphasized that mere escalation in land prices cannot be a ground to deny specific performance once the necessary conditions are satisfied.The Court strongly criticized Krishan Gopal’s dubious conduct, including his failure to disclose the Tahsildar’s order and the subsequent sale to Arun Kalia during the trial. It held that the registered sale deeds executed during the pendency of litigation (May 2002 and April 2012) were void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens), as they were clearly intended to defeat the plaintiffs’ rights.Additionally, the Court clarified that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act empowers courts to grant possession even if not explicitly pleaded, ensuring complete justice. While upholding the plaintiffs’ claim, the Court balanced equities by directing an additional payment of ₹25 lakhs to account for the delay and increased land value, ensuring fairness to both parties. The judgment reinforced that collusive transactions to circumvent legal proceedings will not be tolerated.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance of the 2001 sale agreement, ruling in favor of Gurmeet Kaur’s legal heirs. It directed Krishan Gopal to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance ₹9 lakhs (already deposited in court) plus an additional ₹25 lakhs—accounting for land value escalation—to be paid within 12 weeks. The Court declared null and void the subsequent sale deeds executed by Krishan Gopal in favor of Arun Kalia (2002) and by Kalia in favor of the Pathaks (2012), citing violations of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens). It affirmed the Executing Court’s authority to enforce possession under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, even without explicit pleading. The status quo orders were vacated, and the Registry was instructed to notify the Sub-Registrar to correct land records. The Court dismissed all appeals, holding that the plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness stood proven, while Krishan Gopal’s collusive conduct and fraudulent transfers disentitled him to relief. No costs were awarded, and the 24-year legal battle was conclusively resolved.
Case Details:
Case Title:Krishan Gopal vs. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. Citation:2025 INSC 850 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 2849 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15898 of 2012) Date of Judgment:15 July 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Download The Judgement Here