Godavarthi Ramakrishna Rao &

Anr. vs B. Sitaramachandra Raju (D)

by LR & Ors.
Andhra Pradesh High Court [ Single Judge ]
Appeal Suit No. 130 of 1991
Decided on 13/04/2007

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.19(b) — Specific performance of contract of

sale — Enforcement — subsequent purchaser admitting that he had knowledge
about prior agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff — Plaintiff vendee had
always been asserting that he was willing to perform his part of contract —
Plaintiff having parted with Rs 90,000/- as advance consideration and
purchasers being conscious of fact that said amount remaining to be paid,
purchased these properties — Such parties cannot be said to be bona fide
purchasers without notice of prior agreement of sale — Plaintiff entitled to relief
of specific performance

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. S. NARAYANA ::

Citations :: 2007 (5) AKAR (NOC) 764 (A.P.) :: AIR 2007 (NOC) 1783 (A.P.) ::

Nehaluddin & Anr. vs Sajid & Anr.

Patna High Court [ Division Bench ]
L. P. A. No. 228 of 1998
Decided on 25/04/2007

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.19(b) — Suit for specific performance —
subsequent purchaser claiming himself to be bona fide purchaser for value —
subsequent purchaser was brother of vendor — Agreement to sell in favour of
plaintiff-vendee was registered document and subsequent purchaser thereby had
knowledge of same — Plaintiff having proposed to purchase property at Rs
12,000/-, subsequent purchaser cannot claimed to have purchased same for Rs
4,000/- — Plea by vendor that subsequent transaction was to accommodate his
alleged financial needs and subsequent purchaser agreed to reconvey property
upon receiving back consideration, accepted by subsequent purchaser — He
cannot be termed as bona fide purchaser — Suit for specific performance
decreed in favour of plaintiff (Para 15)

Hon'ble Judge(s): BARIN GHOSH :: NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ::

Citations :: AIR 2007 PATNA 143 :: 2007 AIHC (NOC) 520 (PAT.) = AIR 2007
Patna 143 ::

Dharma Chand vs Omkar & Ors.

Rajasthan High Court [ Single Judge ]
[Link] Second Appeal No. 31 of 1991
Decided on 28/07/2009

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.20 — Relief of specific performance of contract
— Entitlement to — Suit filed by prior purchaser — subsequent purchaser did
not have knowledge of agreement between prior purchaser and vendor —
Property was already in possession of subsequent purchaser — Hence, prior
purchaser would not be entitled to specific performance of contract, in spite of
his willingness to perform his part of contract

Hon'ble Judge(s): GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ::

Citations :: AIR 2010 (NOC) 136 (RAJ.) :: 2010 AIHC (NOC) 329 (RAJ.) ::

Phulgen & others vs Vinay Kumar

Tiwari.
Allahabad High Court [ Single Judge ]
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38524 of 2012
 Decided on 02/07/2013

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O.1, R.10 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S
19(b) — Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S 52 — Suit for specific
performance — Impleadment of transferee pendente lite — subsequent
purchaser who is actually transferee pendente lite, being proper party to suit for
specific performance of agreement to sell, would be entitled to be impleaded in
suit — Not necessary to go on adding all subsequent transferees pendente lite

Broad principles governing impleadment/addition of defendants in suit for specific

performance of an agreement to sell, laid down as under— i) A contract of specific
performance is enforceable against the parties to the contract including those who are
claiming under them; ii) It is not enforceable against a subsequent transferee for
value who has paid money in good faith without notice of the earlier contract as
contemplated under Section 19 (b) of the Act; iii) The subsequent transferee covered
under Section 19(b) of the Act is entitled to demonstrate his bona fides, good faith
and that he has no knowledge of the earlier contract and for the purpose is a
necessary and a proper party to the suit. iv) Transfers pendente lite are hit by Section
52 of the T.P. Act and Section 19(b) of the Act has no application to such cases; v)
Transferee pendente lite cannot take shelter of Section 19(b) of the Act but may be a
proper party where he pleads that he has purchased the property with the leave of the
Court or that the earlier contract had been rescinded, revoked or cancelled and for
passing an effective decree of specific performance; vi) It is always proper to implead
transferee pendente lite on an application of the plaintiff who is dominus lids; vii)
Impleadment of transferee pendente lite on the application of the defendant or on his
own application has to be examined more carefully and strictly and in case for some
reason is turned down even then the Court should ensure to direct him to join the
vendor in executing the sale deed in favour of the decree holder while decreeing the
suit for specific performance; and viii) It is not necessary to go on adding all
subsequent transferees pendente lite as once the transfer made in favour of the first
one fails all consequential transfers would automatically stand invalid. AIR 2007 SC
332, Disting. AIR 1978 All 318; AIR 1954 SC 75; AIR 2005 SC 2813; 1999 All LJ
684, Rel on. (Paras 48, 59)

Hon'ble Judge(s): PANKAJ MITHAL ::

Citations :: 2013 (6) ALJ 152 ::

Y. Vijayalakshmi vs J. Ravi
Sharma & others.
Andhra Pradesh High Court [ Division
Bench ]
L. P. A. No. 174 of 1999
Decided on 12/12/2013

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.20, 19(2) — Relief of specific performance
— In favour of subsequent purchaser — Cannot be granted when earlier
agreement is valid and its execution is not disputed (Paras 16, 17, 18)

Hon'ble Judge(s): L. NARASIMHA REDDY :: M. S. K. JAISWAL ::

Citations :: AIR 2014 ANDHRA PRADESH 26 ::

L. Krishnoji Rao vs Agarbathi Workers

House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. &
Ors.
Karnataka High Court [ Division Bench ]
Regular First Appeal No. 529 of 2000
Decided on 23/09/2011

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.19(b) — bona fide purchaser for value without
notice— — Sale deed of suit property showing that it was not bona fide transaction
 and amount mentioned in sale deed on date of sale deed was only nominal amount
and not valuable consideration — It was sham transaction — Defendant purchaser
was only name lender — He did not enter witness box — Plaintiff was in possession
of property and not so called owner of suit property — Held, that defendant
purchaser was not bona fide purchaser for value without notice (Para 41)

Hon'ble Judge(s): N. KUMAR :: A. N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA ::

Citations :: 2012 (2) AIR Kar R 1 :: 2012 AIR CC 1017 (KAR) :: AIR 2012 (NOC)
(Supp) 1193 (KAR.) ::

Manjari Devi vs Usha Devi and others.

Chhattisgarh High Court [ Single Judge ]
Second Appeal No. 97 of 2005
Decided on 28/11/2013

Transfer Of Property Act (4 of 1882) S.41 — Property jointly owned by three

persons — No partition between them — Consent of all owners necessary
before transfer of property by one owner — Neither consent taken nor
transferee ascertained fact whether transferor had power to transfer property
— Transferee not bona fide purchaser — Not entitled to benefit of S 41 AIR
1983 P & H 114, Disting AIR 1995 MP 205 and 2011 (3) CGLJ 567, Rel on (Para
13)

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. SAM KOSHY ::

Citations :: AIR 2014 CHHATTISGARH 22 ::

Vaneeta Khanna &

another vs Rajiv
Gupta & others.
Delhi High Court [ Single
Judge ]
CS (OS) No. 1200 of
2006
Decided on 01/10/2015

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.6, 19(1)(b) ' ” Suit for
possession ' ” Rights of bona fide purchaser ' ” Plaintiff
claiming to be owner of suit property by virtue of agreement
to sell ' ” Defendants, subsequent purchasers' ™ did not
mention in their written statement about their purchase of
rights as being bona fide and that they purchased rights in suit
property without notice of earlier title in favour of plaintiff ' ”
No evidence led by defendant to that effect ' ” Also, in law,
once title rights are transferred pursuant to Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act, there does not arise application of
Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act ' ” Further, agreement
to sell executed in favour of plaintiff being registered,
defendants were deemed to have notice of agreement to sell in
favour of plaintiff by virtue of Explanation I to Section 3 of
the Transfer of Property Act ' ” Defendants not entitled to
protection of S 19(1)(b) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882),
Ss 19(1)(b), 53A (Paras 25(i), 26)

Hon'ble Judge(s): VALMIKI, J. MEHTA ::

Citations :: 2016 (1) ADR 654 ::
Ghnshyambhai
Dhirubhai
Barvaliya vs Rasikbhai
Dhirubhai Ambaliya and
others.
Gujrat High Court [ Single
Judge ]
Appeal From Order No. 457 of
2016
Decided on 10/01/2017

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.19(b) ' ” bona fide purchaser ' ” Proof of ' ”
Owner selling suit land to subsequent purchaser after handing over possession
and original title deeds in favour of plaintiff ' ” Subsequent purchaser, already
aware of plaintiff being in possession of title deeds ' ” Not bothering to make
inquiry about original title deeds at time of purchase ' ” Subsequent
purchaser, not bona fide purchaser. (Paras 14, 15)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. H. VORA ::

Citations :: AIR 2017 GUJARAT 164 :: AIR 2017 GUJARAT 164 ::
V. N. Verma vs Veena
Mahajan
Delhi High Court [ Division Bench ]
RFA (OS) No. 86 of 1998
Decided on 18/01/2012

contract Act (9 of 1872) S.55 — time when of essence of contract — Ordinarily in

transactions of sale of immovable properties, time is not essence of contract AIR
1988 SC 1074 and AIR 1993 SC 1742, Foll (Para 52)

Hon'ble Judge(s): PRADEEP NANDRAJOG :: PRATIBHA RANI ::

Citations :: 2012 AIR CC 1085 (DEL) :: AIR 2012 (NOC) (Supp) 1178 (DEL.) ::

Sunajul Ali vs Safiqur Uddin

& another
Gauhati High Court [ Single Judge ]
R.S.A. No. 180 of 2002
Decided on 11/06/2013

Limitation Act (36 of 1963) Art.54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S 16 — contract Act
(9 of 1872), S 63 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Limitation — Suit filed
within three years from date of granting permission for conveyance of land in question —
Vendor not able to lead any evidence to show that vendees failed to obtain execution of
sale deed for their own fault — Uncontroverted evidence on record to support plea of
vendee that defendant refused to execute sale deed — For any suit for specific
performance of contract normally time is not essence of contract — Suit not barred by
limitation (Para 11)

Hon'ble Judge(s): NISHITENDU CHAUDHURY ::

Citations :: AIR 2013 GAUHATI 170 ::
Paulus Tigga vs Xaxarios Ekka
& Ors.
Chhattisgarh High Court [ Single Judge ]
Second Appeal No. 8 of 2006
Decided on 12/02/2007

Limitation Act (36 of 1963) Art.54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S 20 — Limitation
for specific performance of contract — Although in agreement time was not essence of
contract there is absolutely nothing on record to show that plaintiff made any effort to get
sale deed executed from seller during his lifetime — Death of seller is to be taken as
starting point for counting period of limitation

Hon'ble Judge(s): DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH ::

Citations :: IR 2007 (NOC) 848 (CHHAT.) ::
Albert Mascrenhas & Ors vs P. V.
Verghese (deceased by [Link].) Ors
Karnataka High Court [ Single Judge ]
R.S.A. No. 71 of 2002
Decided on 09/01/2009

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.16(c) 20 — contract Act (9 of 1872), S 55 — Specific
performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell between plaintiff and defendant —
Defendant who failed to execute sale deed alleged that plaintiff was not willing to perform
his part of contract — time was not essence of contract — Plaintiff was financially well of
to pay balance sale consideration — Balance of convenience was in his favour — Failure
on part of defendant to issue notice rescinding contract showed that it was he who evaded
execution of sale deed — Increase in market value or delay on part of plaintiff to sue —Is
no ground to refuse specific performance (Paras 11,12,13,16)

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. RAMANNA ::

Citations :: 2009 (3) AIR Kar R 173 :: 2009 A I H C 2084 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) ::
AIR 2009 (NOC) 2196 (KAR.) ::
Versatile Commotrade Private
Ltd. vs Chiranji Lal & Anr
Delhi High Court [ Single Judge ]
CS (Comm) No. 304 of 2016
Decided on 17/03/2017

contract Act (9 of 1872) S.55 — contract — time whether essence of — Clause of

contract stipulating time to pay balance amount in 90 days from date of execution of
agreement to sell only if seller obtains NOC at least 15 days in advance from date of
final payment — In case seller— s failure to obtain NOC agreement would
automatically stand extended till NOC is obtained — time, therefore, not essence of
contract. (Para 9)

Hon'ble Judge(s): DEEPA SHARMA ::

Citations :: 2017 (3) ADR 1 ::

Saradamani Kandappan vs S.
Rajalakshmi & Ors.
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2002
Decided on 04/07/2011

contract Act (9 of 1872) S.55 — contract relating to immovable property — Principle that
time is not of essence — Require to be revisited in view of changed circumstances arising
out of inflation and steep increase in prices of immovable properties (obiter dicta) (Para
27)

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. V. RAVEENDRAN :: K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN ::

Citations :: AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 1812 (From : Madras) :: 2011 AIR SCW 4092 (From :
Madras) :: AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 3234 (From : Madras) ::
V. Purushothaman & Ors. vs Kuppusamy.
Madras High Court [ Single Judge ]
A. S. No. 664 of 1996
Decided on 30/01/2008

contract Act (9 of 1872) S.55 — time, whether essence of contract — Agreement to sell —
Specific performance — Sale deed was to be executed before stipulated date — However,
date for performance of contract had been extended by both parties on various occasions
— time was not therefore essence of contract

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. TAMILVANAN ::

Citations :: AIR 2008 (NOC) 1280 (Mad.) :: 2008 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 596 (Mad.) :: 2009
AIHC (NOC) 95 (MAD.) ::
Mohammed Ibrahim (D) by [Link]. &
Anr. vs Mohammed Abdul Razzak.
Andhra Pradesh High Court [ Division Bench ]
City Civil Court Appeal No. 254 of 2002
Decided on 02/04/2007

contract Act (9 of 1872) S.55 — contract of sale — time whether essence of contract —
Vendor himself extended time for performance of contract — time stipulated cannot be
said to be essence of contract

Hon'ble Judge(s): D. S. R. VARMA :: D. APPA RAO ::

Citations :: 2007 (6) ABR (NOC) 1036 (A. P.) = AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 294 :: 2007 (6)
ALJ (NOC) 1021 (A.P.) = AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 294 :: AIR 2007 ANDHRA PRADESH
294 ::