MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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