Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Agreement to Sell--Specific performance--Protection to subsequent purchaser--Bonafide inquires--Bonafide purchaser for consideration

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 3990 of 2007
Rajbir & Ors.
v.
Umed Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 11/08/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41--Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to Sell--Specific performance--Protection to subsequent purchaser--Bonafide inquires--Bonafide purchaser for consideration--Defendant no.3, father and guardian of defendants no. 1 & 2 entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute with the plaintiffs--He received Rs. One Lac as earnest money--The sale deed was to be executed and got registered after obtaining the necessary permission, from the Guardian Judge--Necessary permission was obtained on 05.05.1998--However, defendants No. 1 to 3, executed a sale deed of the suit land, in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 (now appellants) on 25.05.98--The plaintiffs remained ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract--Defendants no. 3 & 4 did not specifically pleaded in the written statement that they made bonafide enquiries, like a prudent person and after satisfying themselves, that the property, in dispute, was unencumbered and that no agreement to sell had been executed, in respect thereof, purchased the same, for valuable consideration, and in good faith--Inference, could be drawn that they came to know of the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiffs, in respect of the land, in dispute, yet they ventured to purchase the same, at their own risk, without making any bonafide enquiries--First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit. (P. 9)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100--Second appeal--Confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law--Legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble”--Findings of facts cannot be interfered with even if they are grossly erroneous. (P.14)
--------------