Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit Based on Unproven Agreement: Suresh Kumar vs. Anil Kakaria (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 945
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a person claim ownership of a property based on an agreement to sell and a will, both of which are not proven in court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute in Panchkula. The core issue was whether the plaintiff could seek a declaration of ownership and a mandatory injunction against the defendants based on an unproven agreement to sell and an unproven will. The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around a plot of land in Panchkula, Haryana. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) originally allotted the land to Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria in 1973. On April 24, 1980, Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria allegedly entered into an agreement with the appellant, Suresh Kumar, to sell the land to him. However, Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria passed away on February 5, 1985, leaving behind two sons and a daughter (respondents 1 to 3) as his legal heirs. These legal heirs then sold the land to respondent No. 4.

On October 10, 1992, Suresh Kumar filed a suit seeking a declaration that the transfer of the land by respondents 1 to 3 to respondent 4 was invalid. He also sought a mandatory injunction directing respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the land to him, claiming possession based on the 1980 agreement and a will allegedly executed by Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria in his favor. The respondents denied the existence of both the agreement and the will, asserting that respondent No. 4 had purchased the land for consideration and had set up a factory on it.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on January 22, 2005, holding that Suresh Kumar failed to prove the agreement to sell and the will. The court also noted that respondents 1 to 3, being the legal owners, had rightly sold the land to respondent No. 4, who was in possession and had established a factory on the land.

The First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on October 21, 2005, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on May 2, 2006, stating that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts were binding and that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the principles of property law and the requirements for proving a claim based on an agreement to sell and a will. The court considered the following:

• The necessity of proving the existence and validity of an agreement to sell for claiming specific performance.
• The need for proper evidence to establish the execution of a will.
• The limitations of a suit for declaration and injunction when the underlying claims of ownership are not established.
• The concept of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts and their binding nature on higher courts.
• The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant, Suresh Kumar, argued that he had a valid agreement to purchase the suit land from Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria, which was executed on April 24, 1980.
• He further claimed that Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria had executed a will in his favor, entitling him to the property.
• Based on these documents, he contended that the transfer of the suit land by respondents 1 to 3 to respondent 4 was invalid and not binding on him.
• He sought a declaration that he was the rightful owner of the property and a mandatory injunction directing respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the property to him.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents denied the existence of the agreement dated April 24, 1980, and the execution of the alleged will by Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria.
• They argued that respondents 1 to 3, being the legal heirs of Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria, were the rightful owners of the property and had validly sold it to respondent 4 for valuable consideration.
• They contended that respondent 4 was in actual possession of the suit land and had set up a factory on it.
• They argued that the suit was misconceived and barred by limitation.

The core of the appellant’s argument rested on the alleged agreement and will, while the respondents focused on denying these documents and asserting their valid transfer of the property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following key points:

• Whether the appellant had a valid claim to the suit land based on the alleged agreement to sell and will.
• Whether the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was maintainable given the circumstances.
• Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were binding on the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the principle of concurrent findings of fact and the established legal principles regarding the proof of agreements and wills, along with the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance.

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This section deals with the scope of second appeals before the High Court, emphasizing that they can only be admitted on a substantial question of law.
• The principles of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The appellant’s failure to prove the agreement to sell and the will was a major factor in the Court’s decision.
• The Court emphasized the importance of concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, stating that these findings were binding unless they were perverse or against the evidence or law.
• The Court also noted that the suit was not for specific performance of the agreement, which was the proper remedy, and that the suit was filed after the limitation period.
• The court considered the fact that the respondents had purchased the suit land for consideration and had set up a factory on it.

The Court considered the lack of evidence to support the appellant’s claims and the legal principles governing property disputes. The Court also emphasized the importance of following the correct legal procedure and adhering to the limitation period.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual findings of the lower courts and the legal principles that govern property disputes. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that the suit was not for specific performance of the agreement, which was the proper remedy, and that the suit was filed after the limitation period.

The Court stated:

“In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the three Courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court.”

“In the first place, the appellant had no title to the suit land. All that he had claimed to possess in relation to the suit land was an agreement dated 24.04.1980 to purchase the suit land from its owner (Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria). The appellant, as mentioned above, failed to prove the agreement.”

“Second, the proper remedy of the appellant in this case was to file a civil suit against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to claim specific performance of the agreement in question in relation to the suit land and such suit should have been filed immediately after execution of agreement in the year 1980 or/and within three years from the date of execution.”

Key Takeaways

• A suit for declaration and mandatory injunction cannot be based on an unproven agreement to sell and an unproven will.
• The proper remedy for claiming rights based on an agreement to sell is a suit for specific performance.
• Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on higher courts unless they are perverse, against the evidence, or against the law.
• It is crucial to file a suit for specific performance within the limitation period.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction cannot be based on an unproven agreement to sell and an unproven will. The court reiterated the importance of proving the existence and validity of agreements and wills in property disputes. This judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the proper remedies for claiming rights based on an agreement to sell and the importance of adhering to the limitation period. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the importance of following the correct legal procedure and adhering to the limitation period.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the existence of the agreement to sell and the will, and that the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was misconceived. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the existence and validity of agreements and wills in property disputes and adhering to the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance.