In a case of property dispute, the Supreme Court has held that by citing escalation of land prices, it could not be contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance of their suit agreement dating back to the year 2001. The Apex Court observed that mere escalation of land prices would not be a reason, by itself, to deny the equitable relief of specific performance once sufficient grounds are made out for granting such relief.

The appeals before the Apex Court pertained to an agricultural land possessed by the appellant and later sold to the respondents.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “It appears that the balance sale consideration of 9,00,000/- was deposited before the Executing Court by the plaintiffs in February, 2012. However, we are informed that there has been an astronomical rise in the prices of lands in the vicinity of the suit land. Even if that be so, mere escalation of land prices would not be a reason, by itself, to deny the equitable relief of specific performance once sufficient grounds are made out for granting such relief.”

Reference was made by the Bench to the judgments in Kanshi Ram vs. Om Prakash Jawal & Ors.(1996) and Gobind Ram vs. Gian Chand (2000).

AOR Pravir Choudhary represented the Appellant while AOR Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The suit land belonged to Krishan Gopal, the appellant. He entered into Agreement to Sell with Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons, Arvinder Singh and Kiranjit Singh (respondents). The appellant undertook to execute a sale deed in their favor after receiving the balance consideration. Thereafter, Gurmeet Kaur and her sons, instituted a Suit seeking specific performance of the afore stated Agreement to Sell claiming that they were put in possession of the suit land by the appellant. The Civil Judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration and the defendant, was directed to execute a sale deed in their favor.

After the dismissal of the appellant’s appeals, the plaintiffs instituted execution proceedings. Thereupon, Arun Kalia and two others filed an application under Section 47 CPC read with Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, raising objections. According to them, the suit land was given to Arun Kalia by Krishan Gopal through an oral agreement to make it cultivable at his own expense, whereby he was entitled to cultivate the suit land for a period of 5 years without paying any rent, and, thereafter, he would be treated as a tenant over the suit land. The Executing Court rejected the petition filed by Arun Kalia and the others, and the Revision Petitions were also dismissed.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that Arun Kalia alleged collusion and fraud in the filing of the specific performance suit but his oral agreement of tenancy with Krishan Gopal appeared to be filled with collusion and fraud. “Krishan Gopal supposedly agreed to put him in possession to enjoy and cultivate the suit land for a period of five years without even paying any rent and continue thereafter as a regular tenant! This self-serving oral arrangement does not inspire confidence. Further, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why Krishan Gopal would suddenly execute sale deeds in favor of Arun Kalia, if there was already an oral agreement of tenancy between them”, it said.

The Bench explained that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, deals with the Court’s power to grant the reliefs of possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc., while dealing with specific performance of contracts. Section 22(1)(a) states that a person suing for specific performance of a contract for transfer of immovable property may ask for possession also in addition to such performance.

In light of the dubious conduct of Krishan Gopal (appellant) and his so-called tenant, Arun Kalia, the Bench asserted that they made collusive efforts to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and tried to thwart their claim by coming up with a fabricated and false oral agreement of tenancy. As per the Bench, the appellant couldn’t maintain a plea at this stage that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance of their suit agreement dating back to the year 2001, by citing the escalation of land prices.

The Bench declared the registered sale deeds executed by Krishan Gopal in favor of Arun Kalia as null and void. Considering that the suit land is a fairly large extent of over 9 acres, the Bench ordered that in addition to the balance sale consideration of ₹9,00,000 deposited with the Executing Court along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, the appellant should be paid a further sum of ₹25,00,000 towards the sale consideration.

Cause Title: Krishan Gopal v. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead), Through Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 850)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Pravir Choudhary, Advocates Reepak Kansal, Geeta Rani, Rakesh Kumar, Nasima, AOR Kamakshi S. Mehlwal

Respondents: Senior Advocate Sumeet Pushkarna, AOR Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, AOR Pravir Choudhary, Advocates Reepak Kansal, Geeta Rani, Rakesh Kumar, Nasima, Vishal Mahajan, Anil Kumar, Divya Kumari Sharma, Harshal V Kulkarni, Divya Kumar Sharma, AOR Vinod Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KumarJustice KV Viswanathan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.