Shyam Kumar Inani vs. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.
Background
Six plaintiffs (including the appellant) filed separate suits in 1995 seeking specific performance of agreements to purchase roughly 24 acres of land in Bhopal from the legal heirs of one Sushila Bai/Devi, who had originally purchased a larger extent of the same land in 1966. The Trial Court decreed the suits in the plaintiffs' favour, but on first appeal the High Court reversed this, dismissing the suits on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove they were "ready and willing" to perform their part of the contract, among other findings. The plaintiffs, along with subsequent purchasers who had bought further interests in the property and joined the litigation, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the evidence on record, including the conduct of the parties' power of attorney holder, who was himself one of the vendees and personally aware of all facts surrounding the simultaneous transactions, and concluded that the plaintiffs had in fact demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contracts, contrary to the High Court's finding. The Court held that subsequent purchasers who bought the property from the original vendors could acquire no better title than what those vendors themselves possessed. Allowing all six connected appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's decrees for specific performance, also allowing the intervention applications of the subsequent purchasers and directing execution of sale deeds in the appellants' favour.
Lesson Learnt
In a suit for specific performance, a buyer's continuous conduct and personal knowledge (including through an authorised agent) can establish "readiness and willingness" to perform even without formal ritualistic proof for each transaction; and anyone who buys property from a seller with a defective or contested title only steps into that seller's shoes and gets no better right than the seller had.