Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Jaspal Singh & Ors.
Background
A plaintiff who had moved abroad authorised an attorney-holder to sue for a declaration that an earlier 1983 decree (which had favoured certain defendants) was illegal and not binding on him, and that his own later sale of the land to other buyers was valid. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court (in second appeal) all agreed the 1983 decree was a collusive one engineered to transfer property without an actual sale deed. The unsuccessful original defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that all three lower courts had concurrently and correctly found the 1983 decree to be collusive: obtained by agreeing to adjust pre-emption money in exchange for rights in the suit property, without proper summons being issued, and with suspiciously hasty admission of the claim. The buyers who later purchased the property from the original plaintiff were found to be bona fide purchasers for value, since the mutation based on the disputed 1983 decree was recorded only after their sale deed was executed. Finding no valid reason to disturb three courts' concurrent factual conclusions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Courts are reluctant to disturb concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts, and a collusive or hastily-obtained decree used to quietly transfer property rights (instead of executing a proper registered sale deed) will not be allowed to override the rights of genuine, bona fide subsequent purchasers.