Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority
Background
The appellant company won a 2007 public auction for a commercial plot from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and paid the full consideration of over Rs. 164 crore, after which DDA executed and registered a Conveyance Deed in its favour. Unknown to the appellant, the original landowner had separately obtained a court declaration in 2015-16 that DDA's underlying land acquisition had lapsed for non-payment of compensation, a ruling the Supreme Court itself upheld in 2017, giving DDA six months to re-acquire the land or return possession: DDA did neither and did not inform the appellant until months after the deadline had passed. When trespassers forcibly took over the plot in 2016 and DDA failed to protect the appellant's possession or refund the money, the appellant sued for recovery of its payments and sought summary judgment, which the Delhi High Court's Single Judge refused, saying the question of possession needed a full trial.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to treat DDA's "return possession first" defence as a genuine triable issue. Since the underlying land acquisition had already lapsed with finality (through the Supreme Court's own 2017 order, and later dismissal of DDA's review and curative petitions), the DDA had no continuing right or interest in the land, and title reverted to the original owner, leaving DDA with no legal basis to demand the appellant hand back possession before refunding. The Court found DDA's defence "fanciful," with no real prospect of success, satisfying the twin test for summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC. Exercising its power under Article 142 to do complete justice, the Court set aside the 2008 Conveyance Deed and ordered mutual restitution, decreeing a refund of the Rs. 164.91 crore sale consideration with 7.5% interest (reduced from the 12% claimed) from the date of full payment until actual payment.
Lesson Learnt
A buyer who pays in full and takes a validly registered conveyance is entitled to a refund with interest when the seller's own underlying title later collapses through no fault of the buyer: a defendant cannot manufacture a false triable issue to avoid summary judgment once the real legal question has already been conclusively decided in earlier litigation.