SHRIRAM MADHAV MORE AND ORS v. ABDUL KHALID ABDUL SAMAD PATEL AND ORS
Specific Performance Denied: Hardship to Bona Fide Purchasers and Lack of Privity Prevail; Death of Defendant During Appeal Impacts Decree.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:37476
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure; Transfer of Property Act; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Muslim Law
- Facts: A suit for specific performance was filed based on an agreement to sell executed in 1975. The trial court dismissed the suit but ordered a refund of the earnest money. The lower appellate court reversed this decision, granting specific performance. Defendants 3 to 5, subsequent purchasers, appealed, arguing they were bona fide purchasers without notice. Defendant No. 2 died during the pendency of the first appeal, and his legal heirs were not brought on record. The key issues revolved around the validity of the agreement, the status of the subsequent purchasers, and the impact of Defendant No. 2's death on the proceedings.
- Procedural Posture: This is a Second Appeal before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's decision and granted specific performance of contract.
- Issue: (1) Was the First Appellate Court justified in granting specific performance, considering the decree of refund by the Trial Court? (2) Was the First Appellate Court justified in granting a decree when Defendant No. 2 died during the appeal and his legal heirs were not brought on record? (3) Is the agreement to sell admissible as evidence, considering doubts about its genuineness? (4) Is the suit filed by the plaintiff within the limitation period? (5) Is the judgment and decree sustainable, considering the hardship caused to the appellants (subsequent purchasers)?
- Holding: The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, quashing the Lower Appellate Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's original decision. The Court held that specific performance was inequitable, considering the hardship to the subsequent purchasers and the lack of privity of contract between the plaintiff and the actual owner of the land.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Defendant No. 2 was the actual owner of the land due to a partition, and Defendant No. 1 lacked the authority to enter into the agreement to sell. The subsequent purchasers (Defendants 3 to 5) were considered bona fide purchasers for value without notice, and enforcing specific performance would cause them undue hardship after being in possession for a long period. The Court also noted that the death of Defendant No. 2 during the pendency of the first appeal, without his legal heirs being brought on record, raised questions about the validity of the decree against him. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Gurnam Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. and others Vs. Gurbachan Kau (D) By L.Rs. and others [(2017) 13 SCC 414], State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SC 89], Saurav Jain and another Vs. M/s A. B. P. Design and another [AIR 2021 SC 3673], V. Muthusami (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Angammal and others [2002 (3) SCC 316], and Arulappan Vs. Ahalya Naik [2001(6) SCC 600], to support its decision. The Court emphasized that the discretion to grant specific performance should be exercised judiciously, considering the equities and hardships involved.
🔒 For Members Only