Summary
The Court upheld findings that the documents were sale agreements and that the purchasers were ready and willing, but substituted Rs.15 lakh compensation for specific performance in the circumstances of the decades-old litigation. Pendente lite transfers remained subject to the suit’s outcome rather than void. The defendants were jointly and severally liable for compensation, with delayed-payment interest; the plaintiff could also withdraw her deposit under the High Court decree.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could correct concurrent findings concerning the transaction and readiness and willingness.
- Whether pendente lite sales were void.
- Whether compensation should replace specific performance under the applicable statutory regime.
Provisions considered
- Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882Subsequent purchases were subject to the suit’s decree, but lis pendens did not annul them or make them void from inception. (¶ 14–14.4)
- Sections 21–22, as applicable to the suit, Specific Relief Act, 1963Supported consideration of pleaded monetary relief in substitution for specific performance, having regard to the circumstances. (¶ 16.1–18)
Held
- The agreements and subsequent acknowledgment consistently evidenced sale, not security for a loan. The contrary findings relied on conjectures and irrelevant factors, including the odd consideration figure; their perversity justified intervention in second appeal. (¶¶ 12–12.4.2, 15)
- Readiness and willingness required assessment of the whole record and conduct, not incessant demands or possession of cash at every moment. Repeated part-payments, timely notice after the stipulated date and the supplementary agreement supported the purchasers. On these facts, filing within limitation and the intervening period did not defeat their claim. (¶ 13–13.7)
- Both subsequent sales occurred after suit institution and were subject to lis pendens. Their effect was subordination to the eventual decree, not illegality or nullity; the High Court’s contrary description was corrected. (¶ 14–15)
- The passage of decades, subsequent purchasers’ effective possession, altered value, express alternative monetary claim and other circumstances justified compensation instead of specific performance. Rs.15 lakh was awarded in lieu of performance and all other claims concerning the land. (¶ 16–18)
- All defendants, including the appellants, were jointly and severally liable within two months, after which 6% annual interest accrued. The plaintiff could also withdraw the Rs.5.10 lakh deposited under the High Court decree. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; specific performance replaced by Rs.15 lakh payable jointly and severally within two months, thereafter carrying 6% annual interest. Plaintiff permitted to withdraw her Rs.5.10 lakh deposit. Parties bear own costs throughout.