NDLI: Seethakathi Trust Madras Vs. Krishnaveni

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1963: s.19(b) Specific Relief Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.19(b) – A previous suit filed by respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale of land was decreed and pursuant thereto, execution proceedings were commenced – Surveyor was appointed by executing court to demarcate 50 acres of land – Executing court executed sale deed – Respondent filed suit against appellant praying for declaration of title and delivery in her favour to the extent of 0.08 cents of the land on the ground that the respondent took possession of 50 acres by way of execution proceedings and that the appellant had trespassed over 0.08 cents of the same – Respondent did not appear in witness box and manager who appeared on behalf of respondent deposed that he was not authorised by respondent to conduct the case – The manager deposed that he was aware of the sale of the suit land in favour of third person – Subsequent purchaser was not impleaded – Suit was dismissed by trial court and first appellate court – High Court held that courts below did not appreciate the evidence particularly with respect to the execution proceedings – On appeal, held: Respondent was fully aware of the prior registered transaction in respect of the same property originally in favour of ‘N’ – This was as per the deposition of her manager – In such a scenario, it was not possible to accept that a decree could have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance – The second vital aspect was that the Respondent did not even step into the witness box to depose to the facts – It was the manager who stepped into the witness box that too without producing any proper authorisation – What he deposed in a way ran contrary to the interest of the Respondent as it was accepted that there was knowledge of the transaction with respect to the same land between third parties and yet the Respondent chose not to implead the purchasers as parties to the suit – Thus, the endeavour was to obtain a decree at the back of the real owners and that is the reason, at least, in the execution proceedings that the original vendor did not even come forward and the sale deed had to be executed through the process of the Court – The case of ‘N’ and the subsequent purchasers including appellant fell within the exception set out in s.19(b) being transferees who had paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract – High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – If the question of law is not framed at the stage of admission, it should be framed at least before deciding the case.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 48
Petitioner	Seethakathi Trust Madras
Respondent	Krishnaveni
SCR	[2022] 1 S.C.R. 322
Judgement Date	2022-01-17
Case Number	5384-5385

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Seethakathi Trust Madras Vs. Krishnaveni

Please Log-in to view this content

Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan

Padmakumari & Ors. Vs. Dasayyan &ors.

Raman (dead) By Lrs. Vs. R. Natarajan

Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh

Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh

Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram and Anr.

Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. M/s Kiran Construction Co. & Ors.

Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (d) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Smt Deokabai Vs. Uttam

Seethakathi Trust Madras Vs. Krishnaveni

Seethakathi Trust Madras Vs. Krishnaveni

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan

Padmakumari & Ors. Vs. Dasayyan &ors.

Raman (dead) By Lrs. Vs. R. Natarajan

Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh

Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh

Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram and Anr.

Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. M/s Kiran Construction Co. & Ors.

Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (d) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Smt Deokabai Vs. Uttam

Seethakathi Trust Madras Vs. Krishnaveni