It was mentioned in the sale deed that vendors were in dire need of money, hence, with the consent of family members, conditional sale deed was Civil Appeal
No 9833 of 2014 being executed in favour of the vendee for a total sale consideration of 5000/-.
Late Kishori Lal Sahu executed a registered gift deed dated 14.02.1983 in favour of his daughter-in-law, Veena Gupta w/o Gopal Prasad.
On failure, decree be passed directing appellant to register the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1, the first plaintiff and as a consequence, the plaintiffs be put in possession of the property in question.
(iii) Whether the courts below committed error in not considering the issue of merger of tenancy to the ownership as is relevant in the deed of sale?” ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS 5.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/retirement-age-of-pti-sports-officer-in-university/
It was further submitted that the Gift Deed by which the property was given to Veena Gupta cannot be termed as Gift Deed as there was consideration for transfer of the property in question as she could get the property in question only on payment of the consideration money mentioned in the sale deed. It is a case in which late Kishori Lal Sahu, father-in-law of Veena Gupta, had Civil Appeal No 9833 of 2014 executed the Gift Deed in her favour pertaining to his properties including the property in question. As per the condition in the sale deed, the property could be repurchased in case 5000/- were paid to Indira Devi up to July, 1984. against Veena Gupta, respondent no.1 herein challenging the same judgment on the issue of default in payment of rent on the part of original defendants was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2014. That the conditional sale deed is being executed on condition that if the vendors would return the full consideration money to the vendee by July 1984 then the vendee would return the same by means of registered sale deed at the cost of the vendors and the vendors fail to return the consideration money within the stipulated time the vendee would be full owner of the property till then the vendee would neither execute any deed of conveyance to others with respect to the land would mortgage the land nor would became the guarantor over the land nor would take loan over the land, if it would have been done it would be illegal.
The vendee would acquired full right title over the afore said land after the expiry of stipulated period and the vendors would have no option or right there after to interfere with respect to the right title and possession of the vendee and the vendee would have been on liberty to mutate his name in place of vendors and utilize the land as per her choice if any interference is made by the vendors or their heirs would be illegal by the court and the vendors would be entitle to bear the cost and damages”.
The relevant clauses in the Gift Deed are extracted hereinbelow:- “I, the executant, am in possession of the above-mentioned property. The primary relief which has been pressed by the plaintiff is extracted below:- “(a) A decree for specific performance of contract be passed in favour of the plaintiff first party and the defendant first be directed to take 5000/- from the plaintiff first party and the defendant second party be directed to execute and register a sale deed with respect to the suit house detailed in Schedule-I below in favour of the plaintiff first party and put the plaintiff first party in possession and on failure of the defendants to do so, the court may be pleased to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff first party on behalf of defendant second party and a decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiff first party be put in possession by delivery of possession through court by dispossessing the defendants or anybody else Civil Appeal No 9833 of 2014 whosoever be found in possession on behalf of the defendant second party.” As has already been noticed, the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had dismissed the suit whereas the High Court had reversed the findings and decreed the same.
Chinna Munuswami Naykar has held that the benefit of a contract of repurchase which did not show that it was intended only for the benefit of the parties contracting, could be assigned and such contract is enforceable. Durgappa Irappa Bhatkar held that both under the common law as well as under Section 23(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, an option given to repurchase the property sold would prima facie be assignable, though it might also be so worded as to show that it was to be personal to the grantee and not assignable. Karuppuswami Gounder, it was held: “ In our view, generally speaking, the benefits of a contract of repurchase must be assignable, unless the terms of the contract are such as to show that the right of repurchase is personal to the vendor. If for any reason the first party does not execute a sale deed in favour of the second party, after five years but within ten years from the date of sale deed dated 4-2-1971, then the second party will have a right to deposit the entire consideration of Rs 4900 in the civil court and get the sale deed executed by the court, the first party will have no objection.
In Shyam Singh’s case (supra) the party having right to repurchase the land sold the rights to a third party for a consideration of 19,000/- by way of a registered document. In our considered opinion, in the absence of any words or expressions in the documents indicating prohibition on assignment or transfer of right of repurchase and in the face of clear provisions of Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an implied prohibition cannot be read into the terms of the Civil Appeal No 9833 of 2014 documents. In the case of Habiba Khatoon
[(1997)
7 SCC 452] taking stock of earlier decisions of this Court, the Privy Council and the High Court of Bombay, the law on the present-contested issue was explained to uphold the right of repurchase of the original contracting party thus: “We may in this connection also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of T.M.
Chinna Munuswami Nayakar [ Sakalaguna Nayudu v.
Case Title: INDIRA DEVI Vs. VEENA GUPTA (2023 INSC 593)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009833-009833 / 2014
