Tag: Specific Performance

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will, or receipt of payment does not constitute a transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Only a duly registered sale deed confers ownership. The doctrine of part-performance under Section 53A is inapplicable without the transferee being in possession, and a Will must be proved in strict compliance with the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property in Delhi between two brothers, Suresh Chand (Plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (Defendant No. 1), after the death of their father, Kundan Lal. Suresh claimed ownership of the property based on a set of documents executed by their father on a single day in 1996, including a Genera...
Read More
Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...
Read More
Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...
Read More
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...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

The Supreme Court ruled that while consumer commissions can award compensation for deficiency in service, including mental harassment and litigation costs, they cannot award interest on a loan taken by the consumer in addition to the stipulated contractual interest (8% compounded annually) on the refunded amount. The Court emphasized that the awarded interest sufficiently compensates for the deprivation of investment, and awarding interest under multiple heads for the same default is unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) launched a residential scheme called 'Purab Premium Apartments' in 2011. Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar (respondents) applied for flats, with Anupam Garg paying an earnest money of ₹5,50,000 for a 2-BHK + Servant Room apar...
Read More
Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of land allotment by UPSIDC due to the allottee's persistent payment defaults and failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The Court found that UPSIDC had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation, including issuing multiple notices. The Court also annulled a subsequent allotment of the same land, emphasizing the need for transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of public resources in line with the Public Trust Doctrine Facts Of The Case: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) applied in March 2003 to purchase 125 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh for floriculture. On September 18, 2003, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) allotted the land, conditional upon certain terms, including a payment schedule. KNMT de...
Read More
Supreme Court : Sale Deeds Executed After Property Power of Attorney Revoked Are Invalid
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Sale Deeds Executed After Property Power of Attorney Revoked Are Invalid

The Supreme Court clarified that an unregistered agreement to sell or power of attorney does not confer title or interest in immovable property. The Court emphasized that property transfer requires a registered deed of conveyance. It also ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected entirely under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if even one distinct cause of action is triable. Facts Of The Case: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (appellant) claimed ownership of agricultural land and obtained a loan of Rs. 7.5 crores from Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent No. 1) in May 2014. The appellant's Board of Directors authorized their Managing Director and Respondent No. 1 to sell the property. Subsequently, an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell were executed in favor of Respondent No. 1 on May 24, 2014.In A...
Read More
Legal Heir or Tenant? : Supreme Court Decides on Protracted Property Battle in Kerala
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Legal Heir or Tenant? : Supreme Court Decides on Protracted Property Battle in Kerala

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the impleadment of a party in execution proceedings, holding that the application for deletion was barred by res judicata as objections were not raised earlier. It ruled that a decree for specific performance implicitly includes possession unless contested by a third party. The Court rejected claims of tenancy rights under the Kerala Rent Control Act due to lack of evidence and upheld the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that frivolous pleas cannot delay execution. Costs of ₹25,000 were imposed for protracting litigation. The Executing Court was directed to ensure possession is handed over within two months Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1996 agreement to sell between the original plaintiff (Prakasan) and defendant (Jame...
Read More