Govind Ingale & Ors Vs. Revanagouda Bhimanagouda Patil  INSC 1440 (18 November 1996)
O R D
and impleadment allowed.
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Karnataka
High Court, made on January
6, 1992 in RSA No.
admitted position is that one Radhabai, mother of the appellants was the owner
of 4 acres 38 gunthas of land in Paschayapur Village in Bijapur Taluka and District in Karnataka State. According to her, she, with a view to dig a well in R.S.
No. 299, namely, the same land, had obtained a loan in the year 1961 from the
father of the respondent in the a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, Since she was not in a
position to complete the digging of the well, she approached again for a sum of
Rs. 2,000/- to complete the well. the respondent's father who is a Constable
had advanced the money on the condition that she would execute the sale deed in
favour of his minor son, i.e., the respondent. Accordingly, she executed the
sale deed with an agreement of re-conveyance which was accordingly executed on August 31, 1961. She stated that she has paid from
time to time a sum of Rs.7,000/- and she asked the respondent to execute the
re- conveyance and the respondent had not executed the deed of re-conveyance.
Consequently, she filed the suit for specific performance. The trial Judge
decreed OS No. 4/1966 on the file of the Additional Munsif, Bijapur on April 3, 1976. On appeal, the Additional Civil
Judge allowed the appeal on November 7, 1977
and dismissed the suit. The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus,
this appeal by special leave.
High Court found that since the agreement of re- conveyance was not for the
benefit of the minor, the decree for specific performance cannot be granted.
The leave of the court was not obtained for entering into such an agreement
and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the specific
performance. We find no force in the reasoning of the High Court in the facts
and circumstances of this case. It is seen that appellant's mother is the owner
of the property. She had obtained loan from the respondent and executed the
sale deed with an agreement of re-conveyance. When the father of the respondent
had obtained the sale deed in the name of the minor, obviously he is bound by
the agreement of re-conveyance as well.
received the money, he had not executed the sale deed. Necessarily, the
appellants are entitled to seek the specific performance. Under these
circumstances, the question that agreement was not for the benefit of the minor
which is a legal proposition, cannot be applied to the facts. It is contended
that subsequent purchaser from the father of the respondent of the self-same
property, without knowledge of the pendency of the suit is bound by the
agreement. We find no force in the contention. The appellants have been seeking
the remedy in the civil suit; any subsequent sale will be barred by the
doctrine of lis pendes. Therefore, the subsequent purchaser is bound by the
decree of specific performance and liable to reconvey the property to the
appellants. The decree of the trial Judge is accordingly restored and that of
the High Court and the Additional Civil Judge stand set aside. The remedy of
recovery of the purchased money from the respondent may be sought in an
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.