DISPUTE OVER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL PROPERTY

by Nancy Sharma | Nov 13, 2024

ASPECTS	DETAILS
Case Title	Shyam Kumar Inani vs. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
Introduction	This case states about an Agreement to Sell executed by Sushila Devi in favor of the plaintiff. The dispute arose over the enforcement of the agreement and subsequent sale deeds, contested by Sushila Devi’s heirs and later purchasers.
Factual Background	Sushila Devi entered into an Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff on August 30, 1990. She later executed a General Power of Attorney to facilitate the sale. After her passing, her legal heirs sold the property to third parties, despite a prior injunction.
Legal Issues	Validity of the Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney Enforcement of specific performance under the Agreement Effect of subsequent sales by legal heirs on plaintiff’s rights Limitation period for enforcing the agreement
Applicable Law	Specific Relief Act, 1963 Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 54) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Doctrine of Lis Pendens)
Analysis	The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, validating the agreement and granting specific performance. The High Court reversed this decision, citing lack of proof, ambiguity in possession, and procedural delays. The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence, focusing on possession, the authenticity of documents, and procedural compliance.
Conclusion	The Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court’s judgment, validating the Agreement to Sell and ordering the heirs to execute the sale deed. It upheld the plaintiff’s rights against subsequent purchasers, affirming the lis pendens doctrine.
Current Scenario	The judgment reaffirms the importance of honoring contractual obligations in property transactions, upholding lis pendens and fair judicial process.

CASE SUMMARY – In this case, an Agreement to Sell executed by Sushila Devi in favor of the plaintiff, which was disputed by her legal heirs following her death. After a trial court’s favorable judgment, the High Court reversed it, questioning the plaintiff’s possession and adherence to legal protocols. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, validating the Agreement to Sell, directing the heirs to fulfill the sale, and safeguarding the plaintiff’s interests against subsequent purchasers. This judgment reinforced the principle of lis pendens, ensuring that the pending suit’s outcome would determine the property’s true ownership.

“Equity regards as done that which ought to be done.”

SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

← RESTAURANT OFFENSE NOT A “HOUSE TRESPASS” UNDER IPC RULED BY SC BULLDOZER JUSTICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OFFICIALS ARE LIABLE RULED BY SC →

Written By Nancy Sharma

I am Nancy Mahavir Sharma, a passionate legal writer and , a judicial service aspirant who is interested in legal researching and writing. I have completed Latin Legum Magister degree. I have been writing from past few years and I am excited to share my legal thoughts and opinions here. I believe that everyone has the potential to make a difference.