On October 14, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Shingara Singh in Civil Appeal No. 5919 of 2023, confirming the High Court’s decision to grant specific performance in favour of Daljit Singh. The judgment, delivered by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, emphasized the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ruling that it applies to alienation of property even if the purchaser claims to be bona fide and unaware of the pending litigation.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an agreement dated August 17, 1990, under which Daljit Singh (plaintiff/respondent) entered into a contract to purchase land measuring 79 Kanals and 9 Marlas from Janraj Singh, the defendant no. 1, for a consideration of Rs. 80,000 per acre. Daljit Singh paid Rs. 40,000 as earnest money and agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 7,54,000 upon execution of the sale deed, which was to be registered by November 30, 1992. When the sale deed was not executed by the defendant, Daljit Singh filed a suit on December 24, 1992, for specific performance.
However, during the pendency of the suit, Janraj Singh executed a sale deed on January 8, 1993, in favor of Shingara Singh (defendant no. 2/appellant), based on a separate agreement dated November 19, 1990. The sale to Shingara Singh was for a lower consideration of Rs. 6,45,937.50, and he claimed to be an innocent purchaser without knowledge of the prior agreement between Daljit Singh and Janraj Singh. A dispute over the legitimacy of the two agreements and the sale ensued.
Key Legal Issues
The core issues before the court were:
1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Could the sale deed executed in favour of Shingara Singh be invalidated under the doctrine of lis pendens even though he claimed to be a bona fide purchaser?
2. Specific Performance of the Agreement: Was Daljit Singh entitled to specific performance of the contract even though the land had been sold to a third party (Shingara Singh)?
3. Fraud and Collusion: Whether the sale agreement dated August 17, 1990, between Daljit Singh and Janraj Singh was a result of fraud and collusion, as alleged by Shingara Singh.
Judgments of the Lower Courts
The Trial Court found that the agreement between Daljit Singh and Janraj Singh was valid but refused to decree specific performance because Shingara Singh, being the current owner, had no notice of the earlier agreement. The court did, however, allow Daljit Singh’s alternative prayer for recovery of Rs. 40,000 with interest.
On appeal, the First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing that the transaction was collusive between Daljit Singh and Janraj Singh.
However, the High Court overturned both decisions, ruling that the sale deed executed by Janraj Singh in favour of Shingara Singh was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The court reasoned that Shingara Singh could not be considered a bona fide purchaser, as the sale occurred during the pendency of the suit, and therefore the suit for specific performance was decreed.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Key Observations
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s ruling, holding that the doctrine of lis pendens applies regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of the litigation or acted in good faith. The court quoted several precedents to support its decision:
– In Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram, the court had held that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree passed by a competent court, even if they had no notice of the pending proceedings.
– The court reiterated the principles in Sanjay Verma vs. Manik Roy, stating that the principle of lis pendens rests on an equitable foundation aimed at ensuring that legal proceedings reach a definitive conclusion without interference by subsequent transactions.
The Supreme Court also criticized the First Appellate Court for delving into the issue of fraud without any cross-appeal from the defendant challenging the finding of the Trial Court on this issue. Citing Banarsi vs. Ram Phal, the court emphasized that without a cross-objection, the First Appellate Court could not have interfered with the findings of the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s decree of specific performance in favor of Daljit Singh, thus recognizing his right to the land despite the sale to Shingara Singh.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shingara Singh vs. Daljit Singh & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5919 of 2023
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Hrin P. Raval, Senior Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Manoj Swarup, Senior Advocate
