Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Right to Repurchase in Conditional Sale Deed Can Be Assigned, Validates Assignment in Gift Deed

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal position regarding the assignment of the right to repurchase in both conditional sale deeds and gift deeds. The verdict, delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal, sheds light on the assignability and enforceability of such rights, along with addressing related contractual issues.

The case of Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta & Ors. came before the apex court, the bench considered the provisions of Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, along with the relevant clauses and intent of the documents involved.

The headnotes of the judgment encapsulate the key rulings and principles laid down by the court:

  1. Conditional Sale Deed - Assignment of Right to Repurchase:

The court examined whether the right to repurchase contained in a sale deed can be assigned by the vendor or if it is of a personal nature and cannot be transferred. It was held that unless explicitly stated in the document, the right to repurchase is not personal and can be assigned. The court emphasized that no implied prohibition against assignment or transfer should be inferred, and assignment of obligations would require the consent of the other party. (Para 15, 16)

  1. Gift Deed - Validity of Assignment:

The court deliberated on the validity of the assignment of the right to repurchase in a gift deed, particularly when consideration money is involved. It ruled that the transfer of the right to repurchase can be considered an assignment and need not be categorized as a gift solely due to the involvement of consideration money. The executor's intent and the conditions attached to the assignment were deemed crucial in determining its validity. (Para 23)

  1. Enforceability of Contract - Specific Performance - Multiple Reliefs:

The court addressed the issue of multiple reliefs claimed in a suit, including specific performance and tenancy claims. It held that multiple reliefs can be claimed in a suit, but the nature of the claims and their compatibility must be considered. (Para 14)

  1. Assignability of Contractual Rights:

The court examined the assignability of contractual rights and distinguished between the assignment of rights and obligations. It stated that contractual rights are generally assignable unless the contract is personal in nature or the rights are incapable of assignment under the law or an agreement between the parties. Assignment of obligations requires the consent of the other party. (Para 20)

  1. Construction of Documents - Implied Terms:

The court discussed the construction of documents and the implication of a prohibition against assignment or transfer. It emphasized that unless the contents of the document and evidence clearly indicate a prohibition, no implied prohibition against assignment or transfer should be inferred. Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act allows for the assignment of benefits unless the contract is personal in nature. (Para 17)

The judgment also referred to several relevant cases, including Bhoju Mandal and Ors. v. Debnath Bhagat and Ors., Kapilaben and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth, through POA Gopal Bhai Madhusudan Patel and Ors., and T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar v. M. Satyanarayana Rao. These cases aided in the interpretation of the law and supported the court's findings. (Para 19, 20, 21)

This landmark judgment brings clarity to the legal landscape concerning the assignment of the right to repurchase in conditional sale deeds and gift deeds. It affirms that unless expressly

 prohibited, such rights are assignable and enforceable. This ruling will have far-reaching implications on property transactions and related contracts, providing parties with greater flexibility and legal certainty.

Date of Decision: 04 July 2023

Indira Devi   vs Veena Gupta & Ors.       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/04-Jul-2023-Indira-Devi-VS-VEENA-GUPTA.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News