Equitable Relief - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement, a prerequisite for specific performance under Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. The burden of proof was not discharged as the sole evidence was self-serving and key witnesses were not examined. The High Court's reversal of concurrent factual findings was erroneous. Facts Of The Case: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 12.02.1999, claiming the appellant (defendant) had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 70,000. They asserted having paid Rs. 55,000 as advance and taken possession, subsequently renting the property back to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, denying any agreement to sell. His defense was that...

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance: Land Sale Agreement Enforced After 24 Years

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 Ag...

Supreme Court Landmark Settlement : Order Caps Pending Debt at ₹15 Lakhs in Mortgage Case

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's order by reducing the appellant's liability to ₹15 lakhs as full and final settlement of the decree. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, considering prolonged litigation, and clarified that the order was fact-specific and not a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a money recovery suit filed by the respondent, V. Sudarsanan, against the original defendants for ₹79,69,544/- with 9% interest on a principal loan of ₹58,50,000/- secured by a mortgage. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant, Umedraj Jain, purchased the mortgaged property from the defendants and attempted to implead himself in the proceedings, but his application was dismiss...