PROTECTING CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS: THE SUPREME COURT'S VERDICT IN DALJIT SINGH V. JANRAJ SINGH
Category: Property Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Daljit Singh agreed with Defendant No.1 on 17.08.1990, to buy the land measuring 79 kanals 09 marlas at rs.80,000 per acre. Daljit also paid rs.40,000 as an advance and the remaining rs.7,54,000 was supposed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 30.11.1992.
Defendant No.1 did not turn up to perform his part of the agreement when Daljit went to the Sub-Register Office on 30.11.1992 with all the money and documents. Proving his presence Diljit submitted an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate and the suit was preferred within 23 days of the due date.
Denying the agreement Defendant No.1 stated that the land belonged to a Joint Hindu Family and he alone couldn’t sell it.
Shingara Singh was included in the case because of buying the same land from Defendant No.1 for rs.6,45,937.50. on 08.01.1993. Shingara affirmed that he was unaware of Daljit’s agreement and believed that he was the rightful owner of the land.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the enforcement of the sale agreement with Defendant No.1 though the land was sold to Defendant No.2.
Whether there was a breach of the doctrine lis pendens, as the land was sold by Defendant No.1 to 2 during the pendency of the case.
Whether Defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser.
Whether the agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.1 was fraud.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Doctrine of Lis Pendens:
This doctrine stated that during the lawsuit the parties involved in the litigation will not be affected due to transfer of any immovable property.
Bona Fide Purchaser:
When someone exchanges property for some value without being aware of the irregularities during the transaction for the same.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
Being unaware of the prior agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.1, the appellant argued claiming that he was a bona fide purchaser. He continues by arguing that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was fake.
He further argues that as the litigation was unaware to him at the time of the sale, the doctrine of lis pendens did not apply here. He continues stating that the High Court should not have set aside the judgements of the lower courts. He then brings out a point requesting that the plaintiff should not be granted the specific performance as the land had already been sold, he says no more than monetary compensation shall be provided.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT:
Starting with his argument the plaintiff claimed that the agreement between him and defendant No. 1 was not fraud. He argues that the sale of land from defendant No.1 to 2 was an illegal one and that defendant No. 2 was held liable under the doctrine of lis pendens. Pointing out that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were residing in the village, he states that there is no way that the agreement is unaware to defendant No.2, making him a no bona fide purchaser. Also, the plaintiff was ready to exhibit his part of the agreement for which defendant No.1 did not cooperate. He carries on the argument stating that he shall be granted with right to claim specific performance.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court upholding the High Court’s decision stated that as there was no evidence to prove the fraud of the agreement it was stated that the agreement was of no fraud. Further, the Court stated that the doctrine of lis pendens was applicable in this case and defendant No. 2 was not a bona fide purchaser. As the plaintiff had proven the originality of the agreement and was willing to perform his duty, the Court held that he was entitled to specific performance.
ANALYSIS:
The case involves a land dispute involving legal provisions like bona fide purchaser rights, the doctrine of lis pendens, specific performance, and others. Through this case, the Supreme Court strongly exhibits the concentration it takes to deal with these types of cases and it always stands with the lower courts if right and continues to deliver fair justice.
CONCLUSION:
Upholding the High Court’s decision the Supreme Court granted the right of specific performance to the plaintiff. The judgement was given in such a way that there was the enhancement of legal provisions and contractual obligations.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
