Specific Performance of Contract

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...

The Supreme Court ruled that an unregistered and unstamped sale agreement (dated 01.01.2000) could be admitted as evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, in a specific performance suit. The Court clarified that such documents are permissible to prove collateral transactions or oral agreements, even if inadmissible for transferring title. It overturned the High Court's rejection, emphasizing that admissibility for limited purposes does not require stamping or registration. The judgment reaffirmed the precedent in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) 5 SCC 401, allowing unregistered documents as evidence in suits for specific performance or collateral claims. No costs were awarded. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated 01.01...

Tag: Specific Performance of Contract

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

Supreme Court Allows Unregistered Sale Agreement: Permits Unregistered Document as Proof of Oral Contract