2002 (7) TMI 833 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of the contract for sale.
2. Declaration of rights over the land.
3. Material alteration in the agreement of sale.
4. Applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Applicability of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Specific Performance of the Contract for Sale:
The appellants filed suit No. 58/1969 seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 19.4.1969. They alleged that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 14,000, of which Rs. 12,000 was paid upfront. Despite reminders, the defendants did not execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed upon receiving the balance amount of Rs. 2,000. This decision was upheld by the First Additional District Judge, Mathura.

2. Declaration of Rights Over the Land:
Respondents 1 and 2 filed suit No. 58/1971 seeking a declaration of their rights over the land, claiming they purchased it on 7.5.1969 for Rs. 15,000 and took possession immediately. They argued that the appellants' agreement was forged. The trial court dismissed this suit, a decision confirmed by the First Additional District Judge.

3. Material Alteration in the Agreement of Sale:
The High Court found that the agreement for sale (Ext. 12) had been materially altered by introducing new marginal witnesses, which was deemed a material alteration that voided the agreement. This finding was based on observations that the original witnesses' names were overwritten. The High Court concluded that this alteration prejudiced the vendors, rendering the agreement void ab initio.

4. Applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The High Court held that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects transfers made by an ostensible owner, did not apply to the case. The vendees could not invoke this provision because the facts did not support its applicability.

5. Applicability of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act:
The High Court also found that Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, which deals with specific performance of contracts involving third parties, was not applicable. The High Court concluded that the appeal could not succeed on this point.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The alleged material alteration did not affect the validity and enforceability of the agreement. The High Court's decision was based on surmise and did not align with the principles of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgments of the First Additional District Judge, Mathura, thereby decreeing suit No. 58/1969 and dismissing suit No. 58/1971. The appellants were awarded costs and a hearing fee of Rs. 20,000.