Latest News
Back
Document:
The onus of proof lies on the party who makes an allegation: Supreme Court
The onus of proof lies on the party who makes an allegation: Supreme Court
In the case of “B. Santoshamma & Anr. V. D. Sarla & Anr.” 300 square yards of land was purchased by the Appellant ‘B. Santoshamma’ from the purchaser under a registered sale deed. This land (referred as "suit land" by the court) was somewhere near Hayathnagar Village and Taluk in Ranga Reddy District of Hyderabad. In the instant case, the appellants acted as a vendor of the suit property. After 10 days, the vendor entered into an oral agreement with Pratap Reddy for the sale of 100 square yards from the disputed land for the total consideration of Rs. 3000/- from which Rs. 2500/- was paid as an advance amount, and the balance Rs. 50/- was paid after an oral agreement reduced in writing. The Appellant (Vendor) also agreed with the Respondent (Vendee) ‘D. Sarla’ for the sale of suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 75,000/- out of which Rs. 40,000/- was already paid as an advance amount.
It was guaranteed by the Appellant that the Respondent was apprised about the sale consideration with Pratap Reddy for 100 square yards of land, and requested them to incorporate a clause concerning the earlier agreement with Pratap Reddy within the sale agreement between the Vendor and the Vendee. However, an assurance was given by the Vendee to the Vendor that she would get the earlier agreement with Pratap Reddy cancelled as they knew him well and had already spoken to him. Hence, there would not be any need to get clearance from Pratap Reddy because no trouble would be created by him.
Later on, the Appellant executed a registered deed of Conveyance transferring 100 sq. yards of the suit land in favour of Pratap Reddy. It was alleged by the Appellant as well as Pratap Reddy that the Respondent tried to meddle with Pratap Reddy’s possession of 100 sq. yards of the suit land. Therefore, a notice was issued to the Respondent contending that the agreement of sale was contingent upon clearance from Mr Pratap Reddy because of the earlier agreement of the sale between him and the Appellant regarding the 100 square yards of the property.
Meanwhile, a complaint was made by the Appellant in a local police station, alleging that the original document of the suit land has been stolen from their residence, along with other documents. However, from a letter reply by the Respondent, it was found that the documents were handed from the Appellant to the Respondent. Afterwards, a suit was filed by the Respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale and claims for delivery of possession of 300 square yards of the land from the Appellant were made. A counter-suit was filed by the Appellant, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the vendee from meddling with the possession of over 100 square yards of the suit land. It was also alleged by the Pratap Reddy that he was not aware of any agreement of the sale between the Appellant and Respondent in respect of the suit land of Rs. 40,000/- in terms thereof.
Issues of the Case:
- Whether the Respondent-Vendee was put in possession of the suit plot admeasuring 300 sq. yards?
- Whether the suit agreement of sale was subject to the clearance of any agreement of sale of 100 sq. yards out of the suit plot in favour of Mr Pratap Reddy?
- Whether the sale of 100 sq. yards out of the suit plot to Mr Pratap Reddy is true and binding on the Respondent-Vendee?
- Whether the Appellant-Vendor committed a breach of contract?
- Whether the Respondent-Vendee is entitled to specific performance of the suit agreement of sale?
Observations of the Court:
It was observed by the Honourable Court that the written agreement does not incorporate any such condition that the Respondent would get the earlier agreement between the Appellant and Pratap Reddy cancelled. The Honourable Court also observed that there will be no relinquishment of Pratap Reddy’s rights without his consent and knowledge. Further, Pratap Reddy has denied knowledge of the agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent. The Appellant executed a registered deed of conveyance in favour of Pratap Reddy without any prior intimation to the Respondent, and without allowing the Respondent to persuade Pratap Reddy to abrogate his earlier agreement with the Appellant.
The Court was of the view that “the onus of proof lies on the party who makes an allegation”. Therefore, it made the Appellant prove the establishment of an agreement between them and Pratap Reddy to cancel the earlier existing agreement. In this case, time for the execution of the agreement is not essential for the sale of immovable property, unless the agreement clearly and expressly incorporates the consequence of cancellation of the agreement.
The Respondent indeed paid Rs. 40,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 75,000/- on the date of the execution of the agreement. An additional sum of Rs. 5000/- was duly acknowledged after some time. The Respondent also offered to pay the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- within 45 days from the date of execution of the contract, which was not accepted by the Appellant. However, Appellant implied to sell 100 square yards of the suit land to Pratap Reddy by executing a registered deed of conveyance in his favour, but a registered deed of conveyance takes effect in property against every unregistered deed relating to the same property as provided in Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The Specific performance of the agreement claimed by the Respondent cannot be executed without impleading Pratap Reddy, to whom ownership of 100 square yards of land had been transferred, by a registered deed of conveyance.
Hence, it was concluded that the said Appeal was rejected because of the objection of the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and instead of awarding damages in respect of the part of the contract which was breached earlier, the Trial Court reduced the total consideration by one-third of the agreed amount i.e. Rs. 25,000/- for 100 square yards.
Document:
