Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS
The facts of this case are as follows:
The plaintiff was a tenant in one of the Katras of a Pucca house, which stood over four
decimals of land appertaining to plot Nos. 2230 and 2231 under Khata No. 721 in
village Alamglrpur, Phulwarisharif, a suburb of the town of Patna, which belonged to
original defendant No. 1 Md. Isa.
In the month of April 1972, the defendant expressed his desire to sell the house to the
plantiff as he was in need of the money. They finally agreed on the sum of Rs. 20,000.
In the month of June 1972, the defendant said he was urgent need of money Rs. 7,000
and that he should him the defendant the money and get the deed of agreement to sell
executed. (on 14th June 1972)
Hence on the date of 15th June 1972, with the payment of Rs. 7,000 as advance to the
full consideration of Rs. 20,000, the deed of agreement of sell was executed by the
defendant on stamp paper and delivered to the plaintiff.
According to the said agreement the defendant was to execute the deed by the end of
January 1973 on the full payment of the consideration but till that time he put the
plaintiff in the possession of the full hose.
The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not fulfil his promise and has execute
the deed, and therefore a notice was send to the defendant on 7th October 1972. In the
meantime another sale deed by father of minor execute by the defendant Md. Isa, which
the plantiff claims to be fraudulent.
ISSUES
The major issues which the High Court find out after taking into consideration the finding of
the trial courts for dismissing the appeal are as follows:
Moving one to the plaintiff himself he despite been having the knowledge of the sale deed
between the Md. Isa and other two defendants in never questioned the same to the defendant
and the deed by the defendant to the plaintiff was to be executed by the end of the January 1973
there is no point in sending the registered notice before the expiry of the time period mentioned
in the beyananama, and there is no such proper proof as to show that the plaintiff was in the
possession of the whole of the building, he can be said to be possession of his katras not whole
of the property. The validity of the beyananama is also in question considering the repeated
change in the ink of the pen with which it was scribed.
Moving on to the question of the bonafide purchaser, the question of constructive notice arises.
Here in this case the court after placing a reliance on series of precedents from both the Indian
courts as well as the common law, said that the doctrine of constructive notice does not apply
here. As per the precedents the constructive notice did not come into picture where the plaintiff
owned more than 1/3rd of the property (case of Hari Charon vs, Kauls Rai) so here in this the
part of the property owned by the plaintiff is some 1/7th in toto along with other tenants and for
such a small portion of the property in possession of the other the purchaser cannot be claimed
as malafide purchaser and is perfect or a good case to apply the doctrine of constructive notice
as propounded in the case of Daniels vs. Davisons.
Hence the plantiff was entitled to appeal for the specific performance, and the appeal was
dismissed.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
In the present case the court reaffirmed the need to prove the attestation of the document by
the witness beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover in this case the court proving some relief to
the purchaser in the cases the plaintiff has very little possession of the property they intend to
buy. The proof of a bonafide purchaser without the notice the burden is not very persuasive
and compulsory on the purchaser as mere denial of the want of the notice can shift burden on
the plaintiff.
As stated earlier the doctrine of constructive notice cannot be extended to a case in which the
person basing his claim on the basis of a prior agreement is in possession of only a small
fraction of the property which has been purchased by the purchasers and in such a case the
purchasers cannot be said to be bound to make enquiry about the previous contract from the
plaintiff or any other tenant in occupation of a portion of the house.
As while analysing the case the author can said that the judges took the notice of the cases as
well as the present facts of the case and then reached the decision.
CONCLUSION
The both the principals confirms that the purchaser also has relief and most importantly affirms
the attestation to be valid and genuine. Moreover, prevent the misuse of the section 3 of the
Transfer of Property act by claiming the property on the basis on very small possession. The
present case is very good example in reaffirming the mandate of the Act and also good in law.
The best part of the judgement is that it in simple way affirms the need of the proving the
attestation beyond reasonable doubt and prevents the misuse of the law. Another good part of
the judgement is the way of structuring and presenting the decision. Moreover, the devotion of
any personal opinion of the Judges in the judgement also forms a major part. All in all the case
works in favour of defendant providing them the benefit of doubt and to stop their
manipulation.
Submitted by:
BA0160005