http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REVANAGOUDA BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1996

BENCH: K. PAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Substitution and impleadment allowed.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  of the  Karnataka High  Court, made on January 6, 1992 in RSA No. 933/78.      The admitted  position is  that one Radhabai, mother of the appellants  was the  owner of 4 acres 38 gunthas of land in Paschayapur  Village in  Bijapur Taluka  and District  in Karnataka State. According to her, she, with a view to dig a well in  R.S. No. 299, namely, the same land, had obtained a loan in  the year  1961 from the father of the respondent in the a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, Since she was not in a position to complete the digging of the well, she approached again for a sum of  Rs. 2,000/-  to complete  the well. the respondent’s father who  is a  Constable had  advanced the  money on  the condition that  she would execute the sale deed in favour of his  minor  son,  i.e.,  the  respondent.  Accordingly,  she executed the  sale deed  with an  agreement of re-conveyance which was  accordingly executed  on  August  31,  1961.  She stated that  she has  paid from  time to  time a  sum of Rs. 7,000/- and  she asked  the respondent  to execute  the  re- conveyance and  the respondent  had not executed the deed of re-conveyance. Consequently, she filed the suit for specific performance. The  trial Judge  decreed OS  No. 4/1966 on the file of  the Additional Munsif, Bijapur on April 3, 1976. On appeal, the  Additional Civil  Judge allowed  the appeal  on November 7,  1977 and  dismissed the suit. The second appeal was dismissed  by the  High  Court.  Thus,  this  appeal  by special leave.      The High  Court found  that since  the agreement of re- conveyance was  not for the benefit of the minor, the decree for specific performance cannot be granted. The leave of the court was  not obtained  for entering into such an agreement and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the  specific  performance.  We  find  no  force  in  the reasoning of  the High  Court in the facts and circumstances of this  case. It  is seen  that appellant’s  mother is  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

owner of  the property.  She  had  obtained  loan  from  the respondent and  executed the  sale deed with an agreement of re-conveyance.  When   the  father  of  the  respondent  had obtained the  sale deed  in the name of the minor, obviously he is  bound by  the agreement  of  re-conveyance  as  well. Having received  the money,  he had  not executed  the  sale deed. Necessarily,  the appellants  are entitled to seek the specific  performance.   Under  these   circumstances,   the question that agreement was not for the benefit of the minor which is  a legal  proposition, cannot  be  applied  to  the facts. It  is contended  that subsequent  purchaser from the father of  the respondent of the self-same property, without knowledge of  the pendency  of the  suit  is  bound  by  the agreement.  We   find  no   force  in  the  contention.  The appellants have  been seeking  the remedy in the civil suit; any subsequent  sale will  be barred  by the doctrine of lis pendes. Therefore,  the subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree of  specific performance  and liable  to reconvey the property to the appellants. The decree of the trial Judge is accordingly restored  and that  of the  High Court  and  the Additional Civil  Judge  stand  set  aside.  The  remedy  of recovery of  the purchased  money from the respondent may be sought in an appropriate action.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.