# Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 865
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-11-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2845 of 2015
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Prashant Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shyam-kumar-inani-v-vinod-agrawal-ors-37925
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Whether the Appellants are entitled to specific performance of an
Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. Whether the Agreement to
Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by one Sushila Devi was valid and
enforceable; whether such execution could be proved by a General
Power of Attorney holder; whether the plea of pardanashin status,
illiteracy and old age affected the validity of the sale; whether the
suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act;
whether plaintiffs were in possession and whether consideration
had been paid; whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing
to perform their part of the contract; whether the subsequent sale
deeds executed during pendency of suit were protected under
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether they violated
the doctrine of lis pendens; and whether the High Court rightly
reversed concurrent findings of the Trial Court.
Headnotes†
Sale of Immovable Property - Specific Performance - Validity
of Agreement to Sell, Proof, Possession, Limitation, and
Appellate Interference - The appellant-plaintiffs sought
specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell with full
consideration paid and possession of 23.98 acres of disputed
agricultural land obtained from Sushila Devi, who passed
away in 1992 - The Trial Court decreed the suit, validating the
agreement, but the High Court reversed the decision, raising
concerns over under-valuation, vagueness of the agreement,
absence of direct testimony by all plaintiffs, lack of boundary
specifications, bar of limitation, and pardanashin status of the
executant - The High Court also questioned the credibility of
the Power of Attorney holder's testimony:
*Author
2376
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decree, concluding
that the Agreement to Sell was valid and enforceable under the
Contract Act and Specific Relief Act - It held that procedural and
substantive requirements were satisfied, with no conclusive proof
of fraud - The Court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud
lies on the defendant - The absence of boundary descriptions was
not fatal to enforceability where the property was clearly identifiable
and plaintiffs were in possession - It was further held that not every
plaintiff must depose if a Power of Attorney holder with firsthand
knowledge proves execution. [Paras 1, 2, 37]
Inference of fraud must be clearly established - The defendants
alleged that the Agreement to Sell was procured through
fraudulent means, citing undervaluation, vague boundaries,
and Sushila Devi's alleged incapacity:
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that fraud must be strictly
pleaded and proved - The burden to proof lies squarely on the party
alleging it - Defendants failed to produce any direct or circumstantial
evidence showing deception, coercion, or concealment by the
plaintiffs - Allegation of fraud was unsubstantiated - No material
produced to prove fraud or misrepresentation - The Supreme
Court noted that the Trial Court correctly found the transaction to
be genuine and voluntary, and the High Court erred in accepting
a speculative charge of fraud. [Para 35.1]
Specific Relief - Validity - Proof of Execution by Power
of Attorney Holder - The Power of Attorney holder, M.K.
Maheshwari, had personal involvement in the transaction,
which was corroborated by an attesting witness and
handwriting expert - The High Court made misplaced adverse
inference from non-examination of other plaintiffs:
Held: Valid execution established - The Court relied on Man
Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512 to affirm that
a Power of Attorney holder with personal knowledge may validly
depose - The Court distinguished the decision in Vidyadhar
Vishnupant Ratnaparkhi v. Manikrao Babarao Deshmukh, (1999)
3 SCC 573, to argue adverse inference for non-examination of
plaintiffs, on facts as the Power of Attorney holder had firsthand
knowledge and testified credibly - The Supreme Court distinguished
Janki

## Text

_Characters 0–39,832 of 75,444. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39832 for what follows._

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 2375 : 2024 INSC 865
Shyam Kumar Inani
v.
Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2845 of 2015)
12 November 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellants are entitled to specific performance of an
Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. Whether the Agreement to
Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by one Sushila Devi was valid and
enforceable; whether such execution could be proved by a General
Power of Attorney holder; whether the plea of pardanashin status,
illiteracy and old age affected the validity of the sale; whether the
suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act;
whether plaintiffs were in possession and whether consideration
had been paid; whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing
to perform their part of the contract; whether the subsequent sale
deeds executed during pendency of suit were protected under
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether they violated
the doctrine of lis pendens; and whether the High Court rightly
reversed concurrent findings of the Trial Court.
Headnotes†
Sale of Immovable Property - Specific Performance - Validity
of Agreement to Sell, Proof, Possession, Limitation, and
Appellate Interference - The appellant-plaintiffs sought
specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell with full
consideration paid and possession of 23.98 acres of disputed
agricultural land obtained from Sushila Devi, who passed
away in 1992 - The Trial Court decreed the suit, validating the
agreement, but the High Court reversed the decision, raising
concerns over under-valuation, vagueness of the agreement,
absence of direct testimony by all plaintiffs, lack of boundary
specifications, bar of limitation, and pardanashin status of the
executant - The High Court also questioned the credibility of
the Power of Attorney holder's testimony:
*Author
2376
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decree, concluding
that the Agreement to Sell was valid and enforceable under the
Contract Act and Specific Relief Act - It held that procedural and
substantive requirements were satisfied, with no conclusive proof
of fraud - The Court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud
lies on the defendant - The absence of boundary descriptions was
not fatal to enforceability where the property was clearly identifiable
and plaintiffs were in possession - It was further held that not every
plaintiff must depose if a Power of Attorney holder with firsthand
knowledge proves execution. [Paras 1, 2, 37]
Inference of fraud must be clearly established - The defendants
alleged that the Agreement to Sell was procured through
fraudulent means, citing undervaluation, vague boundaries,
and Sushila Devi's alleged incapacity:
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that fraud must be strictly
pleaded and proved - The burden to proof lies squarely on the party
alleging it - Defendants failed to produce any direct or circumstantial
evidence showing deception, coercion, or concealment by the
plaintiffs - Allegation of fraud was unsubstantiated - No material
produced to prove fraud or misrepresentation - The Supreme
Court noted that the Trial Court correctly found the transaction to
be genuine and voluntary, and the High Court erred in accepting
a speculative charge of fraud. [Para 35.1]
Specific Relief - Validity - Proof of Execution by Power
of Attorney Holder - The Power of Attorney holder, M.K.
Maheshwari, had personal involvement in the transaction,
which was corroborated by an attesting witness and
handwriting expert - The High Court made misplaced adverse
inference from non-examination of other plaintiffs:
Held: Valid execution established - The Court relied on Man
Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512 to affirm that
a Power of Attorney holder with personal knowledge may validly
depose - The Court distinguished the decision in Vidyadhar
Vishnupant Ratnaparkhi v. Manikrao Babarao Deshmukh, (1999)
3 SCC 573, to argue adverse inference for non-examination of
plaintiffs, on facts as the Power of Attorney holder had firsthand
knowledge and testified credibly - The Supreme Court distinguished
Janki Vashdeo v. IndusInd Bank, (2005) 2 SCC 217 and Rajesh
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2377
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
Kumar v. Anand Kumar, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 981, cited to
challenge validity of POA evidence, on the ground that POA holder
in this case had direct knowledge and personal involvement.
[Paras 25-29, 34.4- 34.5 35.2]
Limitation - Article 54 - Second part applicable - No fixed time
for performance - Cause of action arose upon refusal - The
agreement did not fix a time for registration - After Sushila
Devi's death, mutation was denied in 1994 - Suit filed in 1995
was within limitation:
Held: Suit not time-barred - The second part of Article 54 applied -
Section 54 prescribes that when no date is fixed for performance,
the limitation period begins when the plaintiff has notice that
performance is refused - The Court rejected the High Court's view
that the limitation began immediately upon execution or death of
the executant - The agreement was consistently acted upon and
the plaintiffs had performed their part by paying full consideration
and remaining in possession. [Para 30]
Pardanashin Status - No pleading or proof - Age/illiteracy - No
seclusion - Voluntary execution - High Court assuming Sushila
Devi to be a pardanashin lady, applied higher evidentiary
threshold to the Agreement to Sell:
Held: Sushila Devi not entitled to pardanashin protection -
Presumption of undue influence not applicable - Burden of proof not
discharged by defendants - The Supreme Court found no pleading
or credible evidence to support such status - It distinguished
Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, AIR 1963 SC 1203, relied
on by respondents to invoke stricter scrutiny in transactions involving
pardanashin women, on facts, as Sushila Devi's status was not
analogous due to the absence of seclusion or concealment - It
also distinguished Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity, (2004) 9
SCC 468 relied on to suggest incapacity due age and infirmity,
on facts - Unlike the 100-year-old bedridden woman in that case,
Sushila Devi was active and voluntarily executed the agreement.
[Paras 34.2-34.3]
Possession and Title - Possession since 1990 - Title deeds
handed over - Part performance under Section 53A TPA -
Evidence supported by documents and conduct - The plaintiffs
2378
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
had been in settled possession of the suit land since 1990,
following execution of the Agreement to Sell - They produced
documentary proof including the original sale deed, Rin
Pustika, and land revenue receipts have paid land revenue,
indicating de facto and de jure control - The defendants failed
to rebut the evidence of possession and title handover - It
also distinguished Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal,
(2008) 4 SCC 530, cited to argue execution defects, as the
plaintiffs were in possession, stamp duty and evidentiary
support were both satisfied in present case:
Held: Plaintiffs' continuous possession supported by documentary
evidence established part performance - The Court found
that possession pursuant to a lawful agreement, coupled
with part payment and willingness to perform, attracted
protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
[Paras 31-32, 34.1, 34.6-34.8]
Readiness and Willingness - Full consideration paid -
Continuous willingness - Delay attributable to defendants -
The plaintiffs paid the full consideration under the Agreement
to Sell at the outset and remained ready and willing to execute
the formal sale deed - The delay was due to the inaction of
defendants - The plaintiffs' consistent conduct and attempts
to seek mutation and performance were evident:
Held: Plaintiffs complied with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
Act. [Paras 20.4, 21.4]
Lis Pendens - Section 52 TPA - Sale during pendency -
Violation of injunction - Purchasers not bona fide - Doctrine
to prevent frustration of judicial process - On 18.01.2001, while
the suit for specific performance was pending and after an
injunction was granted on 04.12.2000, the defendants executed
four sale deeds in favour of third parties:
Held: Sale deeds executed during pendency and in violation of
injunction were void - Doctrine of lis pendens squarely applied -
Purchasers could not claim protection under bona fide doctrine due
to notice of pending suit and injunction - The Court distinguished
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt.
Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397 and Yogesh Goel v. Govind Narayan,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 169, which were cited by the defendants to
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2379
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
support protection of pendente lite purchasers - In those cases,
the purchasers had either no notice or the dispute lacked injunction
orders at the time of sale - In contrast, here the purchasers had
clear notice of the pending suit and express injunctive restraint.
[Paras 33, 34.6-34.8]
No enforceability bar due to vagueness - Boundaries
identifiable - Undervaluation not conclusive of mala fides -
The defendants also contended that the Agreement to Sell
was vague and lacked specific demarcation of boundaries,
and that the consideration was below market rate:
Held: Agreement not invalid for lack of precise boundaries or lowerthan-market consideration - No mala fides established - The Court
clarified that minor imprecision in boundary description does not
affect enforceability where the property can otherwise be identified
with certainty - Further, undervaluation alone does not establish
fraud or invalidate the contract when possession, consideration,
and intention to perform are established. [Paras 34.6]
Case Law Cited
Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal [2008] 3 SCR 23 : (2008)
4 SCC 530; Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai & Ors. [1963]
Supp. 1 SCR 456 : AIR 1963 SC 1203; Vidyadhar Vishnupant
Ratnaparkhi v. Manikrao Babarao Deshmukh and Ors. [1999] 1
SCR 1168 : (1999) 3 SCC 573; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v.
Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr. [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 681 : (2005)
2 SCC 217; Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar [2024] 5 SCR 612 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 981; Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nank
Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. [2013] 2 SCR 74 : (2013) 5 SCC
397 - distinguished.
Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity and Ors. [2003] Supp. 3 SCR
496 : (2004) 9 SCC 468; Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind [2024] 7 SCR
668 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 169 - referred to.
Man kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha [2010] 12 SCR 515 : (2010)
10 SCC 512; Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochiram Nagdeo [1999] 2
SCR 767 : AIR 1999 SC 1823 - relied on.
List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Limitation Act, 1963; Contract Act, 1872.
2380
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Agreement to Sell; Specific performance; Limitation; Power of
Attorney; Possession; Pardanashin; Bonafide purchasers; Violation
of injunction.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2845 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2012 of the High Court
of M.P at Jabalpur in FA No. 372 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 2846, 2850, 2847, 2848 and 2852 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
P. S. Patwalia, Rahul Sripat, Sr. Advs., Santosh Kumar, Madhurendra
Sharma, Rajiv R. Mishra, Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Yadav Narender
Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sudhanshu Shashikumar Choudhari, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,
Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advs., Harshvardhan Jha, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar
Jha, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Aman Pathak, Ms. Shuchi Bharti, Ms. Tunika
Sharma, Akshat Shrivastava, Satvic Mathur, Divyakant Lahoti,
Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Ms. Praveena Bisht, Ms. Vindhya Mehra,
Kartik Lahoti, Adith Menon, Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, Ms. Shreya Gokel,
Ms. Anushka Awasthi, Rohan Thawani, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Ms.
S. Ambica, Advs. for the Respondents.
Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Mohua Sinha,
Nawalendra Kumar, Ms. Shwetam, Rishabh Kumar, Shekhar
Kumar, Anoop Kashyap, Advs. for the Interveners.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.
The six appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance
of a contract. The Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the High
Court, on first appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the
Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the present appeals
by the plaintiffs.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2381
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
2.
The dispute relates to 23.98 acres of Khasra Nos.546, 547 and
548 situate in village Godar Mau, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal.
It is an admitted position between the parties that a larger area
measuring 27.56 acres of the aforesaid three khasra numbers was
purchased by one Sushila Bai, wife of late Chandra Mal Aggarwal,
vide registered sale deed dated 29.04.1966 executed by erstwhile
owner Vijay Chhatti for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-. Based
on the said instrument, the name of Sushila Bai was mutated in
land revenue records.
3.
The appellants filed separate suits for specific performance in May,
1995 against the legal heirs of Sushila Devi.
4.
It would be relevant to mention here that in the plaint, defendant
nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were the other legal heirs of late Sushila Devi.
We have mentioned the name of Kailash Aggarwal separately as he
had a distinct role to play in the entire transaction. The sequence of
events which would be discussed and pleaded upon at a later stage
will reflect upon the role of Kailash Aggarwal. However, needless to
say that Kailash Aggarwal was the eldest son of Sushila Devi. All the
plaints are more or less identically worded, as such, we are not giving
any specific details of the separate suit schedule property for each
of the plaint, but we have generally dealt with the plaint allegations.
Briefly stated the plaint allegations are as follows:
a)
Sushila Devi was the owner of the suit schedule property. She
entered into an Agreement to Sell on 30.08.1990 with each
of the appellants separately after receiving the entire sale
consideration. The appellants had taken over actual possession,
having paid the entire sale consideration, the suit schedule
property was agricultural land and cultivated by the appellants.
b)
Details of the land covered and the sale consideration with
respect to six Agreement to Sell are as follows:
S.
NO.
Khasra
No.
Area
Consideration
Name of Purchaser
1.
548
3.48
acres
Rs.58,000/-
Bharat Kumar Lathi
2.
547
3.50
acres
Rs.70,000/-
Shyam Kumar Inani
2382
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.
547
4.0
acres
Rs. 80,000/-
Suryakanta
Maheshwari w/o
KD Maheshwari
4.
547
4.0
acres
Rs. 80,000/-
Ram Kumar Inani
5.
546
4.50
acres
Rs. 90,000/-
Sangeeta
Maheshwari d/o
K.D. Maheshwari
6.
546
4.50
acres
Rs. 90,000/-
K.D. Maheshwari
c)
The defendants are the legal heirs of Sushila Devi and
Agreement to Sell was binding upon them, but they declined
to fulfil their legal obligation by executing the sale deed in
favour of the appellants and had instead applied for mutation
for the suit schedule property which had been allowed by the
revenue authority.
d)
As the entire sale consideration had been paid as per the
contents of the Agreement to Sell, the appellants were put
into possession also. The original title deed of 1966 in favour
of Sushila Devi was also handed over to the appellants. The
witnesses to the Agreement to Sell were Dipesh Chandra Patni
PW-2 and one Mr. Sharma. As the entire sale consideration had
been paid, the time was not the essence of contract and the
same was also incorporated in the Agreement to Sell in clause
6. Smt. Sushila Devi executed a registered General Power of
Attorney in favour of M.K. Maheshwari on 04.09.1990. She died
on 25.12.1992 leaving behind the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 9
and 10 as her legal heirs and representatives.
e)
The legal heirs applied for mutation of their names over the
suit schedule property to which objections were filed by the
appellants. However, they were unsuccessful, and the Tehsildar
directed for mutation of the names of the legal heirs by order
dated 23.02.1999.
f)
The appellants, vide notice dated 28.04.1994 called upon the
legal heirs of Sushila Devi to execute the sale deed. However,
the same was not honoured.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2383
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
g)
The appellants instituted six separate Civil Suits, each seeking
a decree for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell
dated 30.08.1990, against the legal heirs of Sushila Devi,
compelling them to execute the sale deed in accordance with
the said agreement. In these suits, the following reliefs were
similarly claimed:
(i)
A decree directing the defendants to specifically
perform their obligations under the Agreement to
Sell dated 30.08.1990 by registering a sale deed
for the agricultural land under the respective khasra
numbers in favour of the appellants. Alternatively, a
direction was sought for the court itself to execute a
legal sale deed for the disputed property in favour
of the appellants.
(ii)
An award of costs of the suit in favour of the appellants
and against the defendants, along with any other
reliefs deemed appropriate by the court.
(iii) A permanent injunction restraining defendants
no. 1 to 5 from alienating, altering or placing any
encumbrances on the said property, and from
transferring the suit property to any third party or
governmental authority.
(iv) A declaration that the subsequent transfer of the suit
property, effected on 18.01.2001, was void and not
binding on the appellants.
h)
Further, it was brought on record, by way of amendment to the
plaint that the defendant numbers 1 to 5 on the basis of the
mutation order passed on 23.02.1999 was likely to alienate the
suit schedule property in favour of third party and, later on, by
a further amendment, it was brought on record that defendant
nos. 2 to 5 by four separate sale deeds actually alienated the
suit schedule property in favour of newly added dependent
nos. 7 to 10 on 18.01.2001. State of Madhya Pradesh was also
made a party to the suit as defendant no. 6. Trial Court passed
an interim injunction order on 04.12.2000 putting a restraint on
the alienation of the property in suit.
i)
Despite there being an injunction order restraining the defendants
from alienating the suit schedule property, the appellants were
2384
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract
which only required registration of the sale deed as the entire
sale consideration had already been paid. A prayer for specific
performance of the contract was made based on such plaint
averments.
5.
A brief written statement was filed by the respondent State of Madhya
Pradesh-defendant number 6 (respondent no.8) to the effect that the
suit schedule property fell in urban area (Nagariya Kshetra) under
the Nagar Bhumi Seema Adhiniyam and as per the requirements
of the said Act, it was only after the enforcement of the new Master
Plan, that the actual area of land which the owner would be entitled
to possess, would be determined. As such, the defendant would not
have any right to sell the property, nor would the plaintiff have any right
to buy these properties. The plaintiff is, thus, not entitled to any relief.
6.
Defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely Vinod Aggarwal, Jagdish Aggarwal
and Usha Aggarwal, three of the legal heirs of Sushila Devi filed a
joint written statement. They denied the contents of the plaint except
to the extent that Sushila Devi was the owner of the suit schedule
property. It was further stated that she had never executed any
Agreement to Sell. It was, thus, claimed that the suit deserves to
be dismissed.
7.
The subsequent purchasers, under the sale deed dated 18.01.2001,
filed a separate written statement denying the plaint allegations.
They also denied that any Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990
was executed by Sushila Devi. No specific answer has been given
as to whether the sale deed dated 18.01.2001 in their favour was
executed in violation of the injunction order. They also took the plea
that the Agreement to Sell required compulsory registration and also
payment of sufficient stamp duty which was not done, as such, the
same was not admissible in evidence.
8.
It was further stated in their written statement that the sale
consideration mentioned in the Agreement to Sell was much below
the prevailing market rate which indicated mala fide on the part of the
appellants. A plea was also raised to the effect that the suit scheduled
property was owned by a HUF and as such the Agreement to Sell
having been executed only by Sushila Devi without the consent or
confirmation of the other members of HUF, the Agreement to Sell
was void. On such averments, the defendant nos. 7 to 10 stated
that the suit was liable to be dismissed.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2385
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
9.
The Trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues as stated in paragraph 8 of the judgment along with its findings
on each issue. The same are reproduced hereunder:
"
Issues
Finding
1. Whether an Agreement was
executed on 30.08.90 with the
plaintiff by the mother of the
defendants late Sushilabai for the
sale of the disputed land situated
in Godar Mau Khasra No.548 area
3.49 acres?
Sushilabai had executed an
agreement dated 30.08.90 for
the sale of disputed land with
the plaintiff.
2. Whether the plaintiff making full
payment of the Agreement to late
Sushilabai obtained the possession
of the disputed property on 30.08.90
itself?
All the amount of the bai was paid
by the plaintiff to Sushila bai and
the possession of the disputed
property has been obtained.
3(a) Whether the plaintiff has been
always ready to comply with the
Agreement?
In compliance with the agreement
the plaintif has been willing and
ready to fulfil.
3(b) Whether the defendants
have refused to comply with the
agreement?
The Defendants have refused to
comply with the Agreement.
4. Whether the dispute being of
agricultural land, the State of M.P.
is necessary party?
Proved
5. Whether the Defendant No.2 to 5
had sold the disputed land to Deft.
No.7 to 10 even there being order of
prohibition during the course of trial?
Yes
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
get 4 sale deeds dated 18.01.2001
to be declared null and void?
All four sale-deeds dt.18.01.2001
concerning up to the extent of
the disputed land the plaintiff is
entitled to get declared null and
void.
7. Relief and expenses
As per last para of the judgment
& Decree issued."
2386
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. The parties led both oral and documentary evidence in support
of their respective cases. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated
14.05.2001, decreed all the suits as contained in paragraph 45 of
the judgment. The operative part of the judgment of the Trial Court
is reproduced hereunder:
".....
1.
The disputed land situated in Godar Mau in respect
of Khasra No.548 area 3.48 acres which was sold
by registered sale-deed dated 18.01.2001 b Usha
Aggarwal to Md. Shakir Khan, Vinod Aggarwal to Irfan
Khan, Sangita Aggarwal to Ashok Jaiswal and Jagdish
Aggarwal in favour of Tomo has been executed, the
lands of this Khasra No. to that extent of about 4
sale deeds are declared null and void.
2.
That in favour of the plaintiff defendants No.1 to 5
may get executed the sale deed within a period of
two months of the disputed land Khasra No.548 area
3.48 acres.
3.
In respect of the above land, the expenses are to
be incurred on getting the registered sale deed by
the plaintiff.
4.
The cost of this suit of the plaintiff will be borne by
the defendants and the defendants will bear their
own expenses.
...."
11. RCS No.47A/01 and one more were decided on 14.05.2001 and
thereafter by a separate judgment dated 05.10.2001, four other suits
were decreed, details whereof are given in the table below:
S.No.
Civil Suit
No.
Party Name
Decided
on.
1.
RCS No.
22-A/97
Bharat Kumar Lathi vs.
Kaliash Agarwal & 9 others.
(Pankaj Maheshwari - Power
of attorney Holder)
14.05.2001
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2387
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
2.
RCS No.
23-A/97
Shyam Kumar Inani Vs.
Kailash Agarwal & 9 ors.
Filed through self (KDM
Power of attorney prosecuted
later)
14.05.2001
3.
RCS
45-A/01
Smt. Suryakanta vs. Kailash
Agarwal and ors.
(KDM Power of attorney)
05.10.2001
4.
RCS
46-A/01
Raj Kumar Inani Vs. Kailash
Agarwal & ors.
(KDM Power of attorney)
05.10.2001
5.
RCS
47-A/01
Sangeeta Maheshwari Vs.
Kailash Agarwal & ors.
(KDM Power of Attorney)
05.10.2001
6.
RCS
48-A/01
K.D. Maheshwari vs. Kailash
Agarwal and ors.
(KDM Power of Attorney)
Filed through self
05.10.2001
12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgments, the defendants filed an
appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before
the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has
allowed all the six appeals and after setting aside the judgment of
the Trial Court dismissed the suits. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs are in
appeal before this Court.
13. Before proceeding further, briefly, the evidence led by the appellantplaintiffs and the defendant-respondents may be noticed. The
appellants examined either the plaintiff or his Power of Attorney
holder as PW-1. Further, the attesting witness to the Agreement to
Sell dated 30.08.1990, Dipesh Patni was examined as PW-2 and
Mahesh Kumar Maheshwari was examined as PW-3, who was said to
have been Power of Attorney holder of Sushila Devi, vide registered
deed of Attorney dated 04.09.1990. R.K. Pathik was examined as
PW-4 as Handwriting Expert (HWE).
14. On behalf of the defendants, Mohd. Shakir Khan was examined as
DW-1. One of the legal heirs of Sushila Devi, namely Vinod Kumar
2388
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Aggarwal, was examined as DW-2, and Naveen Chandra Deshpande
was examined as DW-3 as Handwriting Expert (HWE). On behalf of
the plaintiffs, the Power of Attorneys of the respective plaintiffs were
filed and exhibited. The Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 was
also filed and duly proved as Exhibit-P/2. The original documents
handed over by Sushila Devi to her Power of Attorney holder Mahesh
Kumar Maheshwari were also filed which included loan book, Ex.-P/3,
Original Sale deed dated 29.04.1966, Ex.-P/4, and the Power of
Attorney in favour of Mahesh Kumar Maheshwari, Ex.-P/5
15. Further, the defendants filed documents relating to the sale deed in
favour of the defendants 7 to 10 along with supporting documents
like loan book etc. which were marked as Exhibits - D/1 to D/6. The
list of documents with brief description filed by the plaintiffs as also
the defendants in one of the suits is given hereunder: -
"Documents filed by the Plaintiffs
Exhibit P-1
Sale agreement dated 30.8.1990
Exhibit P-2
Registered General Power of Attorney dated
4.9.1990 executed by Smt. Sushila Devi in favour
Shri M.K. Maheshwari
Exhibit P-3
Legal notice dated 28.04.1994
Exhibit P-4
Postal Receipt
Exhibit P-5
Sale-deed dated 29.4.1966 executed by Vijay
Chhatti in favour of Smt. Sushila Devi in respect
of Khasra Nos. 546, 547 and 548 area 9.3, 15.5
and 3.3 acres, total are 27.56 acres situated in
Godarmau, Tahsil Huzur District Bhopal
Exhibit P-6
Rin Pustika issued in favour Smt. Sushila Devi
Exhibit P-7
Registered Power of Attorney dated 20.04.1995
executed by Shri Ramkumar Inani (Plaintiff) in
favour of Shri K.D. Maheshwari.
Exhibit P-8
Judgment and decree dated 14.05.2001 passed by
learned Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal
in Civil Suit no.22-A/1994 [Bharat Kumar Lathi vs.
Kailash Agrawal]
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2389
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
Exhibit P-9
Judgment and decree dated 14.05.2001 passed
by Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in
Civil Suit No.23-A /1997 [Shyam Kumar Inani vs.
Kailash Agrawal]
Exhibit P-9A
Evidence of Vinod Kumar Agrawal in Civil Suit
No.23-A/1997 [Shyam Kumar Inani vs. Kailash
Agrawal]
Exhibit P-10
Report of Handwriting Expert Shri R.K. Pathik
Documents filed by the Defendants
Exhibit D-1
Bhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika issued in favour
of Kailash, Vinod and Jagdish
Exhibit D-2
Rin Pustika issued in favour of Irfan Khan
Exhibit D-3
Rin Pustika issued in favour of Modh. Shakir
Exhibit D-4
Rin Pustika issued in favour of Mr. Tommy
Exhibit D-5
Rin Pustika issued in favour of Ashok Jaiswal
Exhibit D-6(c)
Order sheets of Ceiling Case passed by Additional
Collector/Competent Authority
Exhibit D-7
Covering letter dated 28.08.2001 together with
opinion of Shri N.C. Deshpande (Handwriting
Expert)
Exhibit D-8
to D-20
Copies of specimen signature of Smt. Sushila Bai
16. We have mentioned this list only for the purpose of showing as to
what were the documents generally filed by the parties. Most of
the documents were common for all the six suits. The difference in
different suits could be of numbering of the documents as exhibits
but, more or less, they are one and the same.
17. We may now briefly refer to the discussion and analysis made
by the Trial Court including the documents relied upon by it while
decreeing the suit. The Trial Court thoroughly analysed the claims of
both the parties, particularly focusing on the Agreement to Sell dated
2390
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
30.08.1990 and the subsequent conduct of the parties. Following
findings were recorded by the Trial Court:
17.1. The Trial Court found that the appellants had paid the entire
sale consideration at the time of the agreement, and the
possession of the disputed land was handed over by Sushila
Devi to the plaintiff-appellants. The appellants remained in
possession of the land since 30.08.1990, using it for agricultural
purposes. The Trial Court also noted that after Sushila Devi's
death on 17.12.1992, the appellants had repeatedly requested
the defendants, as legal heirs, to execute the sale deed in
their favour, which the defendants failed to do. This refusal
constituted the cause of action for filing the suit for specific
performance.
17.2. The Trial Court relied on the Power of Attorney holder, Pankaj
Maheshwari, as a key witness. He testified to his personal
knowledge of the facts, the execution of the agreement, and
the possession handed over to the plaintiff. Notably, Pankaj
Maheshwari also presented crucial documents, including the
original loan book, the registered sale deed of 1966, and the
Power of Attorney, all of which were duly exhibited before the
Trial Court. The agreement was witnessed by Dipesh Chandra
Patni and one Mr. Sharma. Dipesh Chandra Patni was examined
as plaintiff's witness supporting the appellants' case.
17.3. The defendants, despite alleging fraud and forgery regarding
the execution of the agreement and Power of Attorney, failed
to appear or provide any rebuttal evidence. The Trial Court
emphasized that the burden of proving fraud lay with the
defendants, who did not present any credible evidence to
support their claims. The Trial Court held that the defendants'
absence and failure to present any substantial challenge to
the appellants' evidence effectively confirmed the validity of
the agreement.
17.4. Further, the Trial Court addressed the sale of the disputed
property by the defendants to subsequent purchasers,
Defendant Nos. 7 to 10, during the pendency of the trial. It
noted that a prohibition order had been passed restraining
such a transfer, yet the defendants proceeded with the sale
in violation of the Court's directive. As a result, the four sale
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2391
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
deeds dated 18.01.2001 were declared null and void.
17.5. In its final findings, the Trial Court ruled that the appellants
had been ready and willing to perform their obligations under
the agreement. The suit was found to be within the period of
limitation, as the cause of action arose when the legal heirs of
Sushila Devi refused to execute the sale deed after her death.
17.6. The Trial Court directed that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 must execute
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months and
further declared the sale deeds executed in favour of Defendant
Nos. 7 to 10 as null and void.
18. Now, we briefly refer to the reasoning and findings of the High Court
in allowing the appeal.
18.1. The High Court first scrutinized the Agreement to Sell dated
30.08.1990, emphasizing that it was not registered, and the
sale consideration appeared to be significantly below the
market rate prevailing at the time of the alleged transaction.
The High Court found this to be an indicator of potential mala
fides on the part of the plaintiff-appellants.
18.2. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the agreement lacked
specific details concerning the boundaries of the disputed
land, leading to ambiguity about the property that was to be
conveyed.
18.3. On the issue of possession, the High Court observed that while
the appellants claimed to have been put in possession of the
land by Sushila Devi, there was no substantial evidence to
corroborate this assertion.
18.4. The High Court found that the appellants had failed to
convincingly establish their possession of the land in question,
which significantly weakened their case for specific performance.
18.5. In addition, the High Court placed significant weight on the fact
that the appellants did not enter the witness box to testify in
support of their claims. Instead, the appellants relied on their
Power of Attorney holder, Pankaj Maheshwari, to provide
testimony. The High Court emphasized that while a Power
of Attorney holder may testify regarding facts within their
personal knowledge, critical facts regarding the execution of the
2392
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Agreement to Sell could only be testified to by the appellants
themselves. The failure of the appellants to take the witness
stand led the High Court to draw an adverse inference under
the established legal principle that the best evidence should
be produced, especially when a party to the agreement is alive
and capable of testifying.
18.6. The High Court further examined the issue of fraud and
misrepresentation, which had been raised by the defendants.
It found that the entire transaction was shrouded in suspicion,
given the low consideration, the alleged absence of clear
possession by the plaintiffs, and the fact that the legal heirs
of Sushila Devi were unaware of the agreement. The High
Court concluded that the burden of proving the validity of the
agreement rested on the appellants, particularly in light of the
defence of fraud, but the appellants had failed to discharge
this burden satisfactorily.
18.7. On the issue of limitation, the High Court disagreed with the Trial
Court's finding. The High Court held that the suit was barred by
limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It found
that the cause of action for filing the suit arose immediately
after the death of Sushila Devi in 1992, yet the suit was filed
only in 1995. Given that no specific time was stipulated in the
agreement for the execution of the sale deed, the High Court
concluded that the suit was not filed within the prescribed period
of three years from the date of Sushila Devi's death or the time
when the right to sue first accrued. Based on these findings,
the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove
their case for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell,
and the sale deeds executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 7 to
10 were not liable to be declared null and void. The High also
recorded a finding that the vendor Sushila Devi was entitled
to the benefits admissible to a Pardanashin lady and relied
upon the judgments in the case of MST. Kharbuja Kuer vs.
Jangbahadur Rai & Ors.1 and Krishna Mohan Kul.2 The High
Court, thus, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed
by the Trial Court, and dismissed the suits filed by the plaintiffs.
1
AIR 1963 SC 1203 (para 6)
2
(2004) 9 SCC 468
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
2393
Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
19. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia and Shri Rahul Sripat, learned
senior counsels appearing for the appellants, Shri Sunil Kumar,
Shri Sudhanshu Shashikumr Choudhari and Shri Ardhendumauli
Kumar Prasad, learned senior advocates appearing for different
respondents in different appeals and Shri Shekhar Kumar, advocate
for the intervenor.
20. Briefly summarised, the arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellants by learned senior counsel are to the following effect:
20.1. The Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by Sushila
Devi was duly proved and it was valid and binding on the legal
representatives of late Sushila Devi. Our attention has been
drawn to the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence
led by the plaintiffs in support of the said Agreement to Sell.
The same would be dealt with at an appropriate stage.
20.2. It was next submitted that the defence taken by the respondents
regarding plea of fraud and misrepresentation with respect to
Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990, would be required to
be established by the defendants as the onus of proof in this
regard laid on the defendants. The High Court, in the impugned
judgment, erred to shift the burden on the plaintiff-appellants,
even though the High Court had specifically recorded that
the defendants had failed to lead any evidence in respect of
misrepresentation and fraud.
20.3. An objection and argument was raised by the respondents with
regard to the plaintiffs not entering the witness box to prove
Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990, and that the evidence led
by their Power of Attorney could not establish such facts. The
submission is that one of the plaintiffs, namely K.D. Maheshwari,
had entered the witness box in his suit and he had the Power
of Attorney of the other five plaintiffs. This witness, thus, had
full knowledge of the facts relating to Agreement to Sell as he
was present at the time of the execution of the Agreement to
Sell dated 30.08.1990 as one of the agreements was in his
favour. It was submitted that only a technical objection was
being raised by the respondent to frustrate the valid claim of
the appellants.
20.4. The High Court erred in observing that there was no readiness
and willingness on the part of the plaintiff-appellants. In fact, the
2394
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
plaintiff-appellants had discharged their full burden of payment
of the entire sale consideration at the time of execution of the
Agreement to Sell and had also received possession of the suit
schedule property. The only requirement left was of execution
of the sale deed and its registration, for which, according to
the appellants, they had been requesting the legal heirs of late
Sushila Devi but as they declined and applied for mutation of their
names, the appellants instituted the suit for decree of specific
performance. It was not that any obligation on the part of the
plaintiff-appellants towards Sushila Devi, or after her death her
legal heirs, remained. The issue of readiness and willingness
would arise where any obligation of the plaintiff-purchaser
towards the seller was liable to be fulfilled and had not been
fulfilled within the time that may have been stipulated in the
Agreement to Sell. It is for this reason only that the time was not
the essence as stated in paragraph 6 of the Agreement to Sell.
20.5. With respect to the submissions of the intervenor of being
bona fide purchasers for value, it was submitted that the said
intervenors would only get the rights which their vendors had
and if the rights of the vendors are extinguished, no better
right can be claimed by the intervenors, who are the second
set of subsequent purchasers after the High Court decided
the appeals by the impugned order.
20.6. The High Court erred in holding that the suit was barred by
limitation.