In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has pronounced a judgement regarding a land dispute resolution case. This judgement addresses crucial issues related to property rights and ownership. Stay updated on the latest verdict from the apex court!
Facts
- The Appellant – Developer filed a Suit for Specific Performance seeking execution of the Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017
- The Respondents filed a Written Statement cum Counter Claim seeking payment of balance consideration for the land already transferred to the Appellant – Developer
- Disputes arose regarding the balance consideration for the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas
- The Stamp Duty for the Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 was paid by the Appellant – Developer on 27.08.2018
- Trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the Appellant – Developer, restraining the Respondents from interfering with their possession of the suit property.
- Single Judge extended the injunction to the entire suit property including a parcel of 12,000 sq. feet.
- Division bench of the High Court set aside the Temporary Injunction Order passed by the Trial Court.
- Appellant – Developer challenged the Interim Orders through Miscellaneous Appeals.
- Respondents filed a cross Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the Appellant – Developer.
- Trial Court granted a Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit.
- Single Judge required determination of whether the Appellant – Developer paid part consideration for the entire suit property during trial.
- Division bench determined that the Appellant – Developer did not establish a prima facie case for the grant of a Temporary Injunction.
- Division bench amended the injunction to operate without the condition of depositing the balance sale consideration.
- Division bench found no documentary evidence showing that the Appellant – Developer is in physical possession of the suit property.
Also Read: Bank Guarantee Dispute: ANZ Grindlays Bank v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.
Issue
- The first issue in the judgement is regarding whether possession of the suit property was actually handed over to the Appellant – Developer.
- This issue is crucial in determining the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the case.
- The question of possession is central to the dispute and needs to be resolved to establish the factual basis for further arguments.
- Possession of the suit property plays a significant role in property-related cases and can impact the outcome of the overall dispute.
Also Read: Impactful Judgement: Filing of Revised Income Tax Returns Post Amalgamation
Analysis
- The Appellant claimed possession of the property was handed over to them based on Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 17.10.2017.
- The Respondents argued that only symbolic possession was given, while physical possession remained with them as they are using the property.
- There is a dispute regarding the amount paid by the Appellant to the Respondents for the property.
- The Appellant states they paid Rs. 17,25,00,000 and have a balance of Rs. 3,72,03,750 remaining.
- The Respondents claim only Rs. 14,25,00,000 was paid by the Appellant and they still owe Rs. 10,73,95,000 for the property.
- During the hearing, the Appellant offered to deposit Rs. 10,00,00,000 in court, which was rejected by the Respondents.
- The High Court did not interfere with the Orders as the disputes will be resolved during the trial.
- The Appellant’s interest as the developer has been safeguarded in relation to ownership of the property.
- The High Court has issued a Temporary Injunction prohibiting the Respondents from transferring or creating any third party rights over the property until the Suit is resolved.
Also Read: Shifting of Liquor Shop: Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court
Decision
- The hearing of O.S. No 213/2018 before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District should be expedited and disposed of within a year.
- Pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
- The Orders dated 14.08.2019 by the division bench of High Court, vacating the Temporary Injunction restraining the Developer’s possession over the property, are affirmed.
- No opinion on the merits of the matter has been expressed as the observations were made at an interim stage.
- Leave is granted and the Civil Appeals are dismissed.
Case Title: SAKETA VAKSANA LLP Vs. KAUKUTLA SARALA
Case Number: C.A. No.-009483-009483 / 2019
