The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has allowed a second appeal and set aside the decree of specific performance granted by the first appellate court in a nearly five-decade-old land dispute, restoring the trial court’s decree directing refund of earnest money with interest. The Court held that granting specific performance would cause grave and irreparable hardship to subsequent purchasers, who were found to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated April 11, 1975, under which the plaintiff sought specific performance for the purchase of land measuring 9 Acres 10 Guntha of Survey No. 24 situated at village Pirangamwadi. The trial court dismissed the claim for specific performance in April 2002, but ordered a refund of the earnest amount with interest. However, the lower appellate court reversed this finding on November 10, 2006, and granted specific performance, prompting the subsequent purchasers to approach the High Court.
While deciding the appeal, Justice Shailesh P. Brahme examined the legal sustainability of the decree and found that the true owner of the land was Defendant No. 2, whereas the agreement was executed by Defendant No. 1, who lacked authority to sell the property. The Court further held that the subsequent purchasers had acquired the land through registered sale deeds between 1976 and 1982, had remained in possession for 49 years, and were bona fide purchasers for value, making the grant of specific performance unfair and inequitable.
Further, the Court rejected the appellate contention that the decree was invalid as one of the defendants had died, holding that the decree was not affected since it was not passed against a deceased person who was a party to the contract. However, it found serious errors in the appellate court’s findings on ownership and bona fide purchase, and held that the court had failed to properly apply Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly the doctrine of comparative hardship.
The Court held that enforcing specific performance after several decades would be inequitable and that the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by a refund of money. Accordingly, the High Court restored the trial court’s decree, directed that the expenses incurred for execution of the sale deed in 2014 be recovered from Defendant No. 1, and allowed the second appeal.
Appearance:
For the Appellants – Advocate Balbhim R. Kedar
For the Respondents – Advocate R.R. Deshpande
