AM VI B'nanjegowda - & - Anr - Vs - Gangamma - & - Ors - On - 25 - August, - 2011'

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 4

Nanjegowda & Anr vs Gangamma & Ors on 25 August, 2011

Supreme Court of India


Nanjegowda & Anr vs Gangamma & Ors on 25 August, 2011
Author: C Kr.Prasad
Bench: Markandey Katju, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2006 OF 2006

NANJEGOWDA & ANR. Appellant(s)

Versus

GANGAMMA & Ors. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRMAULI KR.PRASAD,J.

1. Defendant No.1 Nanjegowda and his wife defendant No.3 Jayamma are before us by special leave
against the judgment and decree of affirmance.

2. Plaintiff No.1 Gangamma is the wife of late Honnanna. Plaintiff no.2 Vanajakshi is the daughter of
plaintiff no.1, whereas plaintiff no.3 Nagesha and defendant no.2 Manjunatha are her sons.
Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and possession over an area measuring East to West 50 feet
and North to South 15 feet with a house built thereon measuring 15x12 feet, appertaining to survey
No. 70/19, situated at Kamakshipalya,Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk in the State of Karnataka.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to one Ramakrishna. He had
purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13th December, 1978. The aforesaid
Ramakrishna sold the said property to Honnanna by a registered sale deed dated 5th June, 1980.
According to the plaintiffs, Honnanna executed the power of attorney in respect of the suit property
in favour of defendant nos.1 and 3 which came to an end on his death on 13th July, 1986. Defendant
nos.1 and 3 hereinafter referred to as the defendants (appellants herein) contested the suit. They
have not denied that Honnanna had purchased the property on 5th June, 1980 from Ramakrishna.
However, they claim title over the property on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 27th

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579375/ 1


Nanjegowda & Anr vs Gangamma & Ors on 25 August, 2011

November, 1982. It is further case of the defendants that there being a ban on registry of the
property, an irrevocable power of attorney was executed by Honnanna on 14th July, 1985 as also an
affidavit of the same date.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the Trial Court framed various issues including the
issue as to whether defendant nos. 1 and 3 had acquired title to the property after the death of
Honnanna.

The Trial Court on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that defendants had failed to prove
that Honnanna executed an agreement to sale in favour of defendant no.3 Jayamma. The Trial
Court further held that plea of the defendants that Honnanna delivered possession of the scheduled
property in the light of the agreement dated 27th November, 1982 on the date of agreement is false.
In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Trial Court referred to the contents of the general power
of attorney which indicated that Honnanna had given the general power of attorney in favour of
Jayamma to manage the property. While doing so, the Trial Court observed as follows:

"48..........what can be made from these recitals is that Honnanna was in possession of
the schedule property upto the date of execution of said general power of attorney i.e.
22.7.1985. That being so, the contention of defendants 1 and 3 that Honnanna
delivered portion of the schedule property referred to in the agreement of sale dated
27.11.1982 on the alleged date of agreement of sale is found to be false....."

5. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the Trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal by the
defendants, the High Court had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court.

6. Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that
Honnanna executed an agreement to sale in favour of defendant no.3 Jayamma and she was put in
possession.

According to him, after the execution of the agreement to sale, the ban on the registration of the
documents was not lifted and accordingly Honnanna executed an irrevocable power of attorney and
sworn affidavit,acknowledging possession on 14th July, 1985.

He draws our attention to the agreement to sale (Ext.

D-1) dated 27th November, 1982 and the affidavit dated 14th July, 1985 (Ext. D-3) and contends
that Honnanna having delivered the possession of the property, notwithstanding the fact that sale
deed has not been executed and registered, defendants shall have right over the property. In this
connection, our attention has been drawn to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
(hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). On this ground alone, according to the learned Counsel, the
courts below ought to have dismissed the suit.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579375/ 2


Nanjegowda & Anr vs Gangamma & Ors on 25 August, 2011

7. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, however,
contends that the plea put forth by the defendants that they were handed over the possession of the
property in part performance of the Contract is unfounded on fact and hence Section 53A of the Act
is not remotely attracted. He points out that the findings recorded by the Trial Court, as affirmed by
the High Court that possession was not delivered to the defendants is on appraisal of evidence which
does not call for interference in this appeal.

8. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions. Section 53A of the Act which is
relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

"53A. Part performance- Where any

person contracts to transfer for

consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the
terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the
transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part
thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance
of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has
performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is
an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed
therefore by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him
shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in
respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a
right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has
no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof."

From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a party can take shelter behind this
provision only when the following conditions are fulfilled. They are:

(i) The contract should have been in writing signed by or on behalf of the transferor;

(ii)The transferee should have got possession of the immoveable property covered by the contract;

(iii)The transferee should have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and

(iv)The transferee has either performed his part of the contract or is willing to perform his part of
the contract.

A party can take advantage of this provision only when it satisfies all the conditions aforesaid. All
the postulates are sine qua non and a party cannot derive benefit by fulfilling one or more
conditions.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579375/ 3


Nanjegowda & Anr vs Gangamma & Ors on 25 August, 2011

9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, we, now, proceed to consider as to whether defendants
have satisfied all the requirements. Had they got possession of the immoveable property covered by
the contract necessary for invocation of Section 53A of the Act? Agreement to sale dated 27th
November, 1982 recites that Honnanna had delivered the possession of property to defendant no.3
Jayamma. According to the defendants, there had been ban on registration of documents, hence
Honnanna executed an irrevocable power of attorney on 14th July, 1985. The contents of the general
power of attorney show that the property at that particular time was in possession of Honnanna, the
transferor. This would be evident from the following recital in the power of attorney:

"The vacant site as mentioned in the schedule below which is in my possession acquired through the
registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.1980 registered in the Office of the Sub-

Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, in Book No. 1, Volume 3236 page 210-230 No. 1363, I have
hereby given the power in favour of you to look after and manage completely on my behalf as I am
unable to manage for inevitable reasons."

(underlining ours)

10. Had defendant no.3 Jayamma got possession of the property in pursuance of the agreement to
sale dated 27th November, 1982, there was no occasion for Honnanna to recite in clear terms that he
was in possession of the property. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the finding
recorded by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court that defendants did not get possession of
the property after execution of the sale deed is on correct appreciation of facts, which do not call for
interference in this appeal. In view of this finding, in our opinion, the provision of Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act is not attracted and defendants cannot take advantage of that.

11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly but without
any order as to the costs.

................................................J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU) ................................................J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 25, 2011.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579375/ 4

You might also like