Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act Is Exception From General Rule; Onus Is On Subsequent Purchaser To Prove That He Purchased Property In Good Faith: SC
The Supreme Court observed that Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) is an exception from the general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to prove that he purchased the property in good faith.
The Court observed thus in an Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it allowed the Second Appeal and decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff, granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale of the year 1986.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan enunciated, “Section 19 (b) of the Act, 1963 is an exception from the general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to prove that he purchased the property in good faith and also bona fide purchaser for value.”
AOR Vinod Sharma and Advocate Vishal Mahajan represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate M.L. Saggar represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The Respondent (original Plaintiff) instituted Suit for specific performance of contract based on an unregistered sale deed with respect to the suit property. The original Defendant i.e., the owner of the suit property after entering into an agreement with the Plaintiff transferred the suit property in favour of the other Defendants respectively i.e., the Appellants by way of a sale deed. In such circumstances, the Respondent had to institute the Civil Suit praying for specific performance.
The Trial Court allowed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff. The subsequent purchasers, i.e., the Petitioners preferred first Appeal before the District Court. The first appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff went before the High Court by way of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The High Court allowed the same and hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… the meaning of the term ‘good faith” indicate that in order to come to a conclusion that an act was done in good faith it must have been done with due care and attention and there should not be any negligence or dishonesty. Each aspect is a complement to the other and not an exclusion of the other. The definition of the Penal Code, 1860 emphasises due care and attention whereas General Clauses Act emphasises honesty.”
The Court, therefore, said that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned Judgment and Order.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 895)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Vinod Sharma, Advocates Vishal Mahajan, Anil Kumar, and Reena Devi.
Respondents: Senior Advocate M.L. Saggar, AORs Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocates Armaan Saggar, M.K. Ravi, Sskhaira, and Sunny Sachin Rawat.
