Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment on Specific Performance and Subsequent Purchasers In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, has clarified the applicability of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The judgment elucidates that subsequent purchasers can be directed to execute a sale deed alongside the original vendor under a decree of specific performance, without necessitating a prayer for the cancellation of subsequent sale deeds.

Factual Background The case stems from a registered agreement for sale dated December 1, 1981, where the first defendant agreed to sell his land to the original plaintiffs for Rs. 20,300/-. An advance payment of Rs. 7,000/- was made, with the balance due at the time of the sale deed execution. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be executed within three years. Despite requests from the plaintiffs, both orally and via notices, the first defendant sold parts of the property to the second and third defendants in 1983, and the remaining part to the second and fourth defendants. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the agreement, requesting the court to direct the appellants to hand over possession and execute the sale deed.

Lower Courts’ Decisions The Trial Court validated the execution of the suit agreement and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver possession. The Additional District Judge upheld this decision, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed.

Key Legal Issues and Analysis

1. Validity of the Suit Agreement: The appellants argued that the suit agreement was bogus and not intended to be acted upon, invoking Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, affirming that these sections exclude oral evidence for contradicting written documents but allow evidence on whether parties agreed to the terms in the document. The Court found no merit in the claim that the agreement was fictitious, noting it was raised as an afterthought and was inconsistent with the appellants’ written statements.

2. Requirement of Cancelling Subsequent Sale Deeds: The appellants argued that the plaintiffs should have prayed for the cancellation of subsequent sale deeds. The Court relied on the precedent set in *Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand* and clarified that there was no requirement for such a prayer. Under Section 19(b), a decree for specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers unless they are bona fide purchasers without notice of the original contract.

3. Entitlement to Specific Performance: The Court confirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance. The first plaintiff had proved service of notice and filed the suit within the limitation period. The second plaintiff’s lack of interest and support for the defendants led the Court to restrict the decree to the first plaintiff’s undivided half-share in the property.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court modified the impugned decree, directing the legal representatives of the appellants to execute a sale deed for the first plaintiff’s half-share in the property. The Court outlined steps for obtaining necessary permissions from the State Government and provisions for appointing a Court Commissioner if the defendants failed to cooperate. In case of permission denial, the first plaintiff was granted the right to seek a refund of the advance payment with interest. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the enforceability of specific performance decrees against subsequent purchasers, ensuring protection for original contract parties under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.