1. If Deed Was Executed By Person Without Title, Successors Cannot Enforce Rights On Property Based On Such Deed : Supreme CourtCase Title: KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (D) THR. LRS vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 293The Supreme Court held if someone tries to transfer property rights to another person through a legal document but doesn't actually own...
Case Title: KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (D) THR. LRS vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 293
The Supreme Court held if someone tries to transfer property rights to another person through a legal document but doesn't actually own those rights, the new owner or their successors won't have the legal right to claim those rights from that document.
Case Title: Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th. Lrs. v Gejo. (D) Th.Lrs & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court has held that changes made in a sale deed by one party unilaterally, after the registration of the deed and without the knowledge of the other party, have to be ignored.
Case Title: BHIKCHAND S/O DHONDIRAM MUTHA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS SHAMABAI DHANRAJ GUGALE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 375
The Supreme Court held that during the execution proceedings if the attachment of the judgment debtor's property takes place, then the executing courts shouldn't order the sale of the whole property when the part property could have satisfied the decree.
Case Title: YOGESH GOYANKA VERSUS GOVIND & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 457
The Supreme Court reiterated that a registered sale deed cannot be held to be void merely because it was executed during the pendency of a suit in relation to the property. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not render the pendente lite transfer void.
The Court also held that there is no bar for impleadment of the transferee who has purchased the suit property via a registered sale deed during the pendency of the suit.
Case Title : City Montessori School Versus State of U.P. & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 545
The Supreme Court observed that the rights of the State in the property/land can be transferred only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which the State fetches the best possible price.
“The rights of the State as the lessor can only be sold by a public auction or by any other transparent method by which, apart from the lessee, others too get a right to submit their offer. Selling the plot to its alleged lessee at a nominal price will not be a fair and transparent method at all. It will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”, the court said.
6. Conditions To Invoke S. 53A Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court Explains
Case Title: GIRIYAPPA & ANR. VERSUS KAMALAMMA & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1038
The Supreme Court recently observed that the transferee cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”) if he fails to prove the execution of a sale agreement based on which possession was claimed. The Court also explained the conditions to invoke Section 53A.
Section 53A of TPA acts as a shield for the prospective transferee who is holding possession of the immovable property under a contract of sale, that is not formally executed (not registered). The provision puts an obligation on the transferor to not enforce the contract against the transferee when the transferee has acted in accordance with the written agreement.
Case Title : M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Others, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 870
The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 will kick in from the moment a petition is filed in the Court and not at the stage when notice is issued by the Court.
The Court also rejected the argument that the lis pendens doctrine wouldn't apply when the petition was lying in the Registry in a defective state.
Case Title : Shingara Singh v. Diljith Singh and another, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 795
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under the doctrine of lis pendens, a subsequent purchaser of a property during the pendency of a legal suit cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser, even if they lack notice of prior agreements. The judgment came in an appeal challenging a High Court decision that granted specific performance of a sale agreement, despite a sale deed executed during the pendency of the suit.
9. Sale Not A Contract; No Bar To Transfer Immovable Property To Minor : Supreme Court
Case Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 796
The Supreme Court observed that there's no bar to transfer immovable property in favour of aminor by way of a sale deed. According to the Court, the minor can become the transferee/owner by way of a sale deed and the conditions stipulated under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (persons competent to contract) would not come in the way of challenging the minor's capacity to contract because a sale can't be termed as a contract.
Case Title: LEELA AGRAWAL VERSUS SARKAR & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 967
The Supreme Court observed that allowing a mortgagor to stay in possession does not make the transaction a 'simple mortgage' if the deed specifies that the mortgagor's default in redeeming the property within the stipulated time would lead to transfer of the mortgage property to the mortgagee under 'mortgage by conditional sale' as per Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”).
The Court said that from the intention of the parties, as mentioned in the mortgage deed, a possession of the property remains with the plaintiff-mortgagor with a stipulation that the transfer would become absolute upon the mortgagor's default in redeeming the property within the given time limit. The Court noted that such a transaction qualified as a mortgage by conditional sale, not a simple mortgage.
Case Title: CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH VERSUS MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 347
The Supreme Court held that the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 (“TPA”) wouldn't bar the applicability of principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience.
“In short, there can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of the T.P Act is not applicable in its strict sense in the present case (State of Punjab) then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.”, the Court said.
Case Title: A. B. GOVARDHAN VERSUS P. RAGOTHAMAN, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9975-9976 OF 2024, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 626
The Court held that the production of title deeds of the property as a security towards the debt amounts to the creation of a 'mortgage by deposit of title deeds' under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”).
The Court said that even if the mortgage deed didn't stipulate the creation of a 'mortgage by deposit of title deeds' upon production of the title deeds of the property as a security, it would still be considered as a mortgage under Section 58 (f).
Case Title: N. THAJUDEEN VERSUS TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 839
The Supreme Court observed that a gift deed could not be revoked ordinarily, especially when no right of revocation is reserved in the deed. The Court said that said that when the gift deed was executed by the donor in favor of the donee setting out a purpose of a gift with no right reserved for its revocation in any contingency, then fulfillment of the gift's purpose by the donee would make it a valid gift, rendering it irrevocable.
Case : Celir LLP v. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991
The Supreme Court has held that the Courts can set aside a sale transaction, which was carried out in violation of its directions, as void in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
The Court held that although a sale transaction carried out during the pendency of court proceedings (pendente lite) would not become void due to the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court can reverse such a sale transaction if it was done in contempt of judicial directions.
Case Title: SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VERSUS NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705
The Supreme Court observed that a co-owner whose share in the joint property remained undetermined cannot transfer the entire suit property to another person without its partition being completed by metes and bounds.
In other words, when there exist various co-owners in the property, then the subsequent purchaser of the suit property cannot acquire right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property solely based on the sale deed executed by one co-owner/transferor.
Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up reports can be read here.