Specific-Performance Decree Didn’t Convey Title: Karnataka HC Upholds Earlier Sale To Rival Buyer

In brief

The question

1. Whether a decree for specific performance, without a registered conveyance in favour of the decree-holder, vested title to the property in the plaintiff

The court held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage.

It also directed

The first appellate court’s judgment setting aside the trial court’s decree and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit therefore remained in force.

01Facts

The plaintiff claimed title to the suit property under a decree for specific performance directing defendants 1–7 to execute a sale deed in his favour.

pp. 5–10, 15–18

He did not obtain a registered sale deed pursuant to that decree.

pp. 5–10, 15–18

Defendants 1–7 later executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant 8 on 20 November 1987; defendant 8 subsequently transferred the property to defendant 9.

pp. 5–10, 15–18

The plaintiff’s later suit for declaration of title and related reliefs was decreed by the trial court, but the first appellate court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit.

pp. 5–10, 15–18

The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC.

pp. 5–10, 15–18

The High Court noted prior proceedings concerning the 1987 sale deed and the plaintiff’s application for extension of time to deposit the balance consideration.

pp. 5–10, 15–18

02Issues

i.1. Whether a decree for specific performance, without a registered conveyance in favour of the decree-holder, vested title to the property in the plaintiff

pp. 8–9, 15–16

ii.2. Whether the 20 November 1987 sale deed in favour of defendant 8, and the later transfer to defendant 9, defeated the plaintiff’s claim to title

pp. 10–13, 17–18

iii.3. Whether the first appellate court’s decision raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC

p. 18

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that a decree for specific performance, by itself, does not convey title; title passes upon execution of the required conveyance, with registration where required.

pp. 12–13, 16

It also relied on Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, under which competing transfers by the same transferor are governed by priority, so a later transfer cannot displace an earlier one.

p. 17

The judgment refers to the plaintiff’s application under Section 148 CPC for enlargement of time, but cites no precedent.

pp. 6, 16–17

Under Section 100 CPC, interference in second appeal requires a substantial question of law.

p. 18

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100 Section 148

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 48

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the first appellate court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had not acquired title merely by obtaining the specific-performance decree, because no registered sale deed had been executed in his favour before the 1987 conveyance.

pp. 12–13, 16

It further held that the later sale deed allegedly executed in the plaintiff’s favour on 3 January 1989 could not confer title against the earlier registered conveyance, applying Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act.

pp. 12–13, 16–18

The Court also relied on the prior proceedings concerning possession and the dismissal of the plaintiff’s application for extension of time, and found no basis to disturb the first appellate court’s findings.

pp. 12–13, 16–18

The judgment contains an apparent internal inconsistency: paragraph 8 states that the plaintiff deposited the balance consideration by the prescribed date, whereas the earlier account and paragraph 9 state that he did not do so.

pp. 6, 15–17

It also appears to contain a drafting error in paragraph 10, which refers to the 1989 deed as conferring no title “in favour of defendant No. 8”.

p. 17