No Offence of Money Laundering When Scheduled Offence Not Committed: Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge in Money Laundering Case Finality of Resolved Land Compensation Claims In Land Acquisition Cannot Be Undone Based on Policy Changes: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Conspiracy Charges in Burail Jail Break Case, Citing Key Witnesses Turning Hostile Fictional Cause of Action Cannot Circumvent Limitation Law; Plaint Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court Judicial Scrutiny Of Interest Rates Is Barred By Law; It Is The Reserve Bank's Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court IBC | High Court Interference In CIRP Proceedings Is Unwarranted Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Recommendations of the Single Member Committee must align with BCCI Constitution to avoid governance conflicts in cricket administration: Supreme Court Excessive Interference Undermines Efficiency And Independence Of Arbitral Proceedings: Supreme Court Awareness of Award's Filing Triggers Limitation, Not Formal Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Arbitration Awards Contributions To Construction Do Not Confer Exclusive Title Unless Backed By Proof Of Consent Or Separate Agreement: Calcutta High Court Affirms Equal Ownership In Joint Property Seniority Must Prevail in Teacher Transfers: Kerala High Court Overrules Administrative Tribunal's Orders" High Court Cannot Condon Delay Beyond 90 Days in UAPA Bail Appeals: Punjab & Haryana High Court Offences Under Section 138 of the NI Act Are Compensatory in Nature and Can Be Resolved at Any Stage: Madras High Court Fairness and Transparency in Property Distribution: Delhi High Court Resolves Family Dispute Pre-EMI Deductions Without Adherence to RBI Guidelines Not Enforceable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unilateral Claims Cannot Substitute Proof: Calcutta High Court Rules in Insurance Dispute Bank Guarantees Are Autonomous Contracts, Cannot Be Obstructed by External Claims: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Additional Evidence Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in a Party’s Case: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Actress Shilpa Raj Kundra: Finds No Intent or Mens Rea to Violate SC/ST Act"

Obligations Specific to Developer’s Skills Die with Him – Legal Heirs Not Liable for Personal Performance Under Development Agreement: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court addressed the extent of liability of legal heirs in fulfilling obligations under a development agreement after the demise of the original developer, a sole proprietor. The key legal issue revolved around distinguishing between inheritable monetary obligations and personal obligations that cease upon the proprietor’s death.

Facts and Issues: The dispute arose from a development agreement between the complainants, Jayashree Padmakar and others, and developer Vinayak Purshottam Dube. After Dube’s death, his legal heirs were brought into the case to fulfill the agreement’s obligations. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had held the heirs responsible for all obligations, both monetary and personal, under the agreement. The heirs appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning their liability, especially for personal obligations requiring Dube’s expertise and skills.

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the obligations under the development agreement. It distinguished between proprietary rights (inheritable and having economic value) and personal rights (non-transferable and ending with the individual).

The Court referred to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 37 and 40 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, highlighting that personal obligations dependent on an individual’s skills or competencies are not transferable to legal heirs.

Legal precedents, including Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes and Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. Amrit M. Patel, were cited to underline that obligations requiring personal performance by the deceased cannot be enforced against legal heirs.

The Supreme Court ruled that while the legal heirs are responsible for monetary obligations from the deceased’s estate, they are not liable for personal obligations that were specific to the developer’s skills or expertise. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCDRC’s orders imposing personal obligations on Dube’s heirs but upheld the monetary liabilities to be settled from the estate.

Date of Decision: 1st March 2024

 

Vinayak Purshottam Dube (Deceased), Through LRs vs. Jayashree Padmakar Bhat & Others

Similar News