Specific performance decree upheld; subsequent sale deeds declared void and additional consideration of ₹25 lakh directed

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard appeals arising out of a dispute over more than nine acres of agricultural land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, challenging a trial court decree for specific performance and subsequent transfer transactions alleged to be collusive and in violation of lis pendens.

The Court allowed the primary appeal insofar as it confirmed the decree for specific performance dated 21.10.2008 in Suit No. 508 of 2002, declared subsequent registered sale deeds in respect of the suit land null and void, and directed that the decree holder deposit an additional sum of ₹25,00,000 with the Executing Court within 12 weeks to enable execution of the decree. The Court observed that certain transfers were "hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the doctrine of lis pendens" and found that the conduct of the defendant and his purported transferees exhibited collusive features. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As the said sale deeds were admittedly executed after the institution of the suit for specific performance by the plaintiffs, they were hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the doctrine of lis pendens and did not confer legal and valid title upon him. In turn and in consequence, the two sale deeds executed on 04.04.2012 by Arun Kalia in favour of the two others, who are allegedly his own relations, must also suffer the same fate." The Court further noted that "we have no doubt that they made collusive efforts to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and tried to thwart their claim" and directed the Registry to communicate the judgment to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for necessary corrections in records.

Background The dispute arose from an Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 by which Krishan Gopal agreed to sell 73 kanals 12 marlas of agricultural land to Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons for ₹10,00,000, receiving ₹1,00,000 as earnest money and undertaking to execute a sale deed by 31.01.2002 on receipt of the balance consideration. The buyers alleged they were put in possession in November 2001 and had spent about ₹8,00,000 on making the land cultivable; they sued for specific performance on 20.04.2002, asserting readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount. The trial court decreed specific performance and granted possession on payment of the balance; the decree stood affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court on concurrent findings that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform.

During trial and subsequent execution proceedings, Arun Kalia and others claimed prior possession and reliance upon a Tahsildar order dated 22.05.2002 recording Arun Kalia as cultivator; Krishan Gopal later produced registered sale deeds in favour of Arun Kalia dated 29.05.2002 and Arun Kalia in favour of others dated 04.04.2012. The Executing Court rejected objections by these transferees, applying Section 52 and lis pendens; the High Court dismissed a revision against that order. This Court found that the defendants had not disclosed material facts in pleadings, that post‑suit transfers were ineffective under Section 52, and that the claimed oral tenancy appeared self-serving and inconsistent with the subsequent registered transfers. The Court relied on established principles that readiness and willingness did not require production of cash and that possession could be ordered under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act when justice required. The result: the two sale deeds of 29.05.2002 and the consequent deeds of 04.04.2012 were declared null and void; the plaintiffs were directed to deposit an additional ₹25,00,000 (over the ₹9,00,000 already deposited) within 12 weeks with the Executing Court, which would then give effect to the 2008 decree. Status quo orders were vacated and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2849 of 2015 & Civil Appeal No. 9495 of 2025 (SLP (C) No. 23476 of 2016) Case Title: Krishan Gopal v. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead), through LRs., & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Krishan Gopal (appellant) For the Respondent(s): Gurmeet Kaur (dead), through legal representatives, & others (respondents)