Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Agreement to Sell Not Barred Under Fragmentation Act: Supreme Court Restores Justice in Property Sale Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set a significant precedent in property sale disputes, ruling in favor of the appellant, Munishamappa, against M. Rama Reddy & Ors. The apex court’s decision, delivered on November 2, 2023, by Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, emphatically stated that an “Agreement to Sell is not barred under the Fragmentation Act,” thus overturning the High Court of Karnataka’s earlier ruling.

The case, which revolves around a specific performance suit of a property sale agreement, brought into question the applicability of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1996. The Supreme Court’s judgment is poised to impact future cases involving property agreements and their interpretation under various state laws.

The origin of the dispute dates back to 1990, when an agreement to sell a property for Rs. 23,000 was made between Munishamappa and the respondents. Despite the agreement and the repeal of the Fragmentation Act in 1991, the respondents delayed the sale deed’s execution, prompting Munishamappa to seek legal recourse.

The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit, citing doubts about the agreement’s execution and the limitation period. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, affirming the agreement’s validity and adherence to the limitation period. The matter escalated to the High Court, which erroneously declared the agreement void, citing a violation of the Fragmentation Act.

Supreme Court clarified, “The Agreement to Sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confers any title.” This pivotal observation underlines the legal distinction between an agreement to sell and the actual conveyance of property rights, a nuance that was crucial in this case.

The Supreme Court’s intervention has not only rectified a legal misinterpretation by the High Court but also reinstated the rights of the appellant under the agreement. The apex court’s ruling, restoring the First Appellate Court’s decision, decrees the suit for specific performance in favor of Munishamappa, marking a significant moment in India’s property law jurisprudence.

The case exemplifies the Supreme Court’s role in correcting legal misinterpretations and upholding justice, especially in complex property law scenarios. Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of contractual rights and a clarification on the legal standing of property sale agreements under Indian law.

Date of Decision: 2nd November 2023

MUNISHAMAPPA VS M.RAMA REDDY & ORS.   

Latest Legal News