Krishan Gopal vs Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) Through Lrs

Non-reportable 2025 INSC 850 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2849 OF 2015

KRISHAN GOPAL .......Appellant

VERSUS

GURMEET KAUR (DEAD), THROUGH LRs., & ORS. ........Respondents

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9495 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) NO. 23476 OF 2016)

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 23476 of 2016.

2. These appeals pertain to an extent of agricultural land admeasuring

73 Kanals 12 Marlas, i.e., over 9 acres, comprised in Khewat Khatauni Nos.

75/102, 145/275, 268/414 and Khasra Nos. 106/2(9K-12M), 3(8K), 4(8K),

5(8K), 107/1(8K), 2(8K), 9(8K), 10(8K) and 11(8K) situated in Mauja Dada

Hadbast No. 496, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. This land Signature Not Verified

(hereinafter, ‘the suit land’) belonged to Krishan Gopal, the appellant in Civil Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.07.15 17:55:06 IST Reason:

Appeal No. 2849 of 2015. He entered into Agreement to Sell dated

08.10.2001 with Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons, Arvinder Singh and Kiranjit

1 Singh. Thereunder, Krishan Gopal agreed to sell the suit land to them for a

total consideration of ₹10,00,000/-. A sum of ₹1,00,000/- was received by

Krishan Gopal as earnest money and he undertook to execute a sale deed in

their favour by 31.01.2002, after receiving the balance consideration of

₹9,00,000/-. The Agreement also contained the recital that Krishan Gopal,

before execution of the sale deed, would obtain the possession of the suit

land to the satisfaction of Gurmeet Kaur and her sons and hand over

possession to them at the time of execution of the sale deed. This recital

clearly implied that the possession of the suit land was not with Krishan Gopal

at that time.

3. Thereafter, Gurmeet Kaur and her sons, Arvinder Singh and Kiranjit

Singh, instituted Suit No. 508 of 20.04.2002 before the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Hoshiarpur, seeking specific performance of the aforestated

Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001. In their suit plaint, they claimed that they

were put in possession of the suit land by Krishan Gopal in November, 2001,

and had spent about ₹8,00,000/- to make the land cultivable and fit for

agriculture. They asserted that they were always ready and willing to perform

their part of the contract by paying the remaining sale consideration to

Krishan Gopal and had approached him on 25.01.2002 in that regard but he

did not turn up on 31.01.2002 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoshiarpur,

to execute and register the sale deed in their favour. They, accordingly,

prayed for a decree for the specific performance of the suit agreement by

directing Krishan Gopal to execute and register the sale deed in their favour.

2 They also sought a consequential permanent injunction restraining him from

interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit land. In the alternative,

they prayed for a decree for recovery of ₹10,00,000/- in their favour along

with costs.

4. In his written statement, Krishan Gopal admitted the execution of the

Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 but contested the readiness and

willingness on the part of Gurmeet Kaur and her sons to pay the balance

consideration of ₹9,00,000/-. He claimed that, as they had failed to pay the

amount prior to 31.01.2002, he got issued legal notice dated 11.03.2002

calling upon them to do so and get the sale deed executed and registered

within 15 days. He asserted that they intentionally did not accept the said

notice and chose to file the suit. He, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of

the suit. Notably, this written statement was filed in December, 2002.

5. Gurmeet Kaur and her sons, the plaintiffs, examined three witnesses,

including Arvinder Singh, plaintiff No.1, and adduced documentary evidence.

Krishan Gopal, the defendant, examined four witnesses, including himself,

and he also marked documents in evidence.

6. By judgment dated 21.10.2008, the learned Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Hoshiarpur, decreed the suit. Therein, she opined that the readiness

and willingness of the plaintiffs was to be seen from the evidence adduced

and it was not necessary for them to produce the balance sale consideration

as their financial position was shown to be quite sound and they had sufficient

balances in their bank accounts, as evidenced by their exhibited statements

3 of accounts. Krishan Gopal’s inconsistent stands about going to the

Sub-Registrar’s office at Hoshiarpur on 31.01.2002 also weighed with the

learned Judge, as he had stated in one breath that there was no necessity for

him to go there but, thereafter, he claimed that he attended the said office at

10.30 am on that day. Significantly, during the course of the trial, Arvinder

Singh, who deposed as PW-2, admitted that one Arun Kalia had filed a case

for correction of the Khasra Girdwari before the Tahsildar, Hoshiarpur, against

Krishan Gopal, claiming to be in possession of the suit land, and that they, the

plaintiffs, had filed an application in April, 2002, seeking to be impleaded

therein, but without success. He claimed ignorance of the result of those

proceedings. It is, however, an admitted fact that the Tahsildar-cum-Assistant

Collector, Grade II, Hoshiarpur, passed order dated 22.05.2002 in that case

holding that it was proved that Arun Kalia was in possession of the suit land.

He, accordingly, directed correction of the Khasra Girdwari for the year

1998-99 by showing Arun Kalia therein as the cultivator. Krishan Gopal relied

on the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2002 to attack the averment of the

plaintiffs in their plaint that they had been put in possession. The plaintiffs,

thereupon, pleaded that even if they had failed to claim the relief of delivery of

possession, the Court could suo motu grant such relief. Accordingly, the

learned Judge directed the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration

within two months, whereupon Krishan Gopal, the defendant, was directed to

execute a sale deed in their favour. The plaintiffs were also held entitled to

delivery of possession of the suit land.

4

7. Aggrieved by the decretal of the suit, Krishan Gopal filed Civil Appeal

No. 78 of 05.12.2008 before the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur.

However, this appeal came to be dismissed, vide judgment dated 01.12.2011.

8. Thereupon, Krishan Gopal filed a second appeal in R.S.A. No. 1219

of 2012 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

However, this appeal also met with the same fate when it was dismissed on

29.03.2012. The High Court recorded that, in the light of the concurrent

findings of fact that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform

their part of the contract, it had no hesitation in holding that no substantial

question of law arose in that context for consideration. The High Court,

accordingly, non-suited Krishan Gopal at the threshold. This judgment is

subjected to challenge before us in Civil Appeal No. 2849 of 2015, arising out

of SLP (C) No. 15898 of 2012. By order dated 09.05.2012 passed therein,

this Court directed status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained until

further orders.

9. While so, in February, 2012, after the dismissal of Krishan Gopal’s

Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2008 on 01.12.2011 by the learned Additional District

Judge, Hoshiarpur, the plaintiffs instituted execution proceedings. Thereupon,

Arun Kalia and two others filed an application therein under Section 47 CPC

read with Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC, raising objections. They alleged that the

judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008 passed in favour of the plaintiffs was

a result of collusion between the decree holders and the judgment debtor and

was, therefore, not binding on them. According to them, the suit land was

5 given to Arun Kalia by Krishan Gopal through an oral agreement in January,

1998, 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. Arun Kalia

claimed that his own land adjoined the suit land and that he spent a huge

amount to make the suit land cultivable. He asserted that, after he did so,

Krishan Gopal tried to forcibly take possession of the same, constraining him

to file an application before the Tahsildar for correction of the Khasra

Girdwari. He relied upon the order dated 22.05.2002 passed in the said

proceedings, recording his name as the cultivator in possession of the suit

land, and claimed that the plaintiffs had instituted the suit on the strength of a

fabricated agreement so as to obtain a decree in collusion with the judgment

debtor, simply to defeat his rights. He further claimed that Krishan Gopal had,

in fact, sold the suit land to him for ₹11,50,000/- under two registered sale

deeds dated 29.05.2002, without disclosing the pendency of the suit

proceedings. He claimed that he had sold the suit land thereafter to the other

two applicants, Krishan Dev Pathak and his wife, Kamla Dev Pathak, for

₹60,00,000/- under two registered sale deeds dated 04.04.2012. The

applicants, accordingly, prayed for rejection of the execution petition, by

declaring that the decree sought to be executed was a collusive and

fraudulent one.

10. However, by order dated 08.07.2016, the Executing Court rejected the

petition filed by Arun Kalia and the others. Therein, the Executing Court noted

6 that there was no evidence of the suit being a collusive and fraudulent one,

as it had been hotly contested for over six years. Further, the judgment debtor

had, thereafter, not only filed an appeal before the High Court but after failing

therein, he also carried the matter to the Supreme Court. The Executing

Court noted that the Tahsildar’s order dated 22.05.2002 was also disclosed

before the Trial Court and there was no suppression in that regard. The Court

concluded that Krishan Gopal’s sale deeds dated 29.05.2002 in favour of

Arun Kalia and the sale deeds executed by Arun Kalia in favour of the other

applicants on 04.04.2012 were hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882, and the doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, Arun Kalia and the

two others, being transferees pendente lite, could not obstruct the execution

of the decree.

11. Aggrieved thereby, Arun Kalia and the other two applicants filed Civil

Revision No. 4658 of 2016 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh. This Civil Revision was dismissed by a learned Judge of the

High Court on 23.07.2016. The learned Judge observed that the petitioners

fairly conceded that they were transferees pendente lite and had preferred

objections in that capacity, as they were claiming under the judgment debtor,

and were not third parties. Their Revision was, therefore, held to be

maintainable but, noting the observations made by the Executing Court in

support of its conclusion that the suit proceedings were neither collusive nor

fraudulent, the learned Judge held that it was not required of the Executing

Court to frame separate issues and allow parties to adduce evidence thereon.

7 Holding that such a course of action was not necessary in the absence of the

objectors showing a prima facie case in their favour, the learned Judge

rejected the contention that the order was liable to be set aside so as to invite

a fresh decision on their objections. The Civil Revision was, accordingly,

dismissed in limine. This order was assailed by Arun Kalia, Krishan Dev

Pathak and Kamla Dev Pathak, by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.

23476 of 2016. By order dated 10.08.2016 passed therein, this Court directed

status quo to be maintained and tagged it with Civil Appeal No. 2849 of 2015.

12. This being the factual backdrop, we may note certain crucial aspects.

The Agreement to Sell was admittedly executed on 08.10.2001 and the sale

deed pursuant thereto was to be executed by 31.01.2002. The plaintiffs

asserted that they were ready and willing to pay the balance consideration on

that day and get the sale deed executed and registered but the defendant

failed to turn up at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoshiarpur. The

inconsistent stands of Krishan Gopal as to whether or not he attended the

Sub-Registrar’s office on that day must weigh against him. The financial

position of the plaintiffs, having been found to be sound by the Trial Court as

well as the First Appellate Court on the strength of their property holdings and

the balances in their bank accounts, that issue is no longer open to question

before us.

13. Well settled is the legal proposition that, to prove his readiness and

willingness, a purchaser need not necessarily produce the money or carry it

with him or vouch a concluded scheme of finance. [See Nathulal vs.

8 Phoolchand1; and Sukhbir Singh & Ors. vs. Brij Pal Singh & Ors. 2]. It is

equally well settled that readiness and willingness is to be inferred from the

conduct of the parties. [See His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji

vs. Sita Ram Thapar3; and Bibi Jaibunisha vs. Jagdish Pandit & Ors.4].

14. Further, we must also note that, though Krishan Gopal filed his written

statement in the suit in December, 2002, he did not disclose therein that Arun

Kalia was a tenant in possession of the suit land; that he had secured the

order dated 22.05.2002 confirming that fact; and that he, Krishan Gopal, had

executed two registered sale deeds on 29.05.2002 in Arun Kalia’s favour. It

was only during the course of the trial that he placed reliance on the order

dated 22.05.2002 passed by the Tahsildar, Hoshiarpur, certifying that Arun

Kalia was in possession of the suit land. Even at that stage, Krishan Gopal

did not disclose that he had executed two registered sale deeds on

29.05.2002 in favour of Arun Kalia. As the said sale deeds were admittedly

executed after the institution of the suit for specific performance by the

plaintiffs, they were hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

and the doctrine of lis pendens and did not confer legal and valid title upon

him. In turn and in consequence, the two sale deeds executed on 04.04.2012

by Arun Kalia in favour of the two others, who are allegedly his own relations,

must also suffer the same fate.

1

(1969) 3 SCC 120 2 (1997) 2 SCC 200 3 (1996) 4 SCC 526 4 (1997) 4 SCC 481

9

15. Arun Kalia alleged collusion and fraud in the filing of the specific

performance suit but, on the other hand, we find that it is his so-called oral

agreement of tenancy with Krishan Gopal that smacks of 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

favour of Arun Kalia, if there was already an oral agreement of tenancy

between them. The other self-serving story of Krishan Gopal turning against

Arun Kalia, constraining him to approach the Tahsildar, Hoshiarpur, also does

not jell with the willing and voluntary execution of sale deeds by Krishan

Gopal in Arun Kalia’s favour immediately thereafter. Last, but not the least,

Arun Kalia was obviously aware of the claim of Gurmeet Kaur and her sons

as they unsuccessfully tried to get impleaded in April, 2002, in the

proceedings initiated by him before the Tahsildar, Hoshiarpur, but he chose to

silently remain in the wings till execution proceedings were instituted by

Gurmeet Kaur and her sons on the strength of the decree secured by them.

16. The plaintiffs’ conduct was not entirely blameless either as they

asserted in the suit plaint that they were put in possession, contrary to the

recital in the Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001. Further, by the date of

institution of their suit on 20.04.2002, they had already filed an application for

impleadment on 09.04.2002 in the proceedings initiated by Arun Kalia before

10 the Tahsildar, Hoshiarpur, which clearly indicates that they knew of the

existence of Arun Kalia and his claim of possession as the cultivator of the

suit land. Despite the same, an assertion was made in the suit plaint, to the

contrary, that the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit land in

November, 2001, and that they spent ₹8,00,000/- to improve it. However,

faced with the order dated 22.05.2002, produced by Krishan Gopal during the

trial, the plaintiffs chose to modify their stand and pleaded that the Trial Court

could suo motu grant them the relief of possession while decreeing their suit

for specific performance. The Trial Court accepted this plea and directed

delivery of possession of the suit land to them after execution and registration

of the sale deed.

17. 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 this regard, we may refer to Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal Kishori

Lal & Ors.5. It was held therein that, in appropriate cases of specific

performance of contracts of sale of immovable property, the Court can order

delivery of possession of the property even if it has not been specifically

asked for. It was observed that an order for delivery of possession without a

corresponding amendment in the plaint would only be a mere omission which

5 (1982) 1 SCC 525

11 would not be fatal to the relief of possession under Section 22 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963, and more so, when the order is being made in furtherance of

the cause of justice. Therefore, the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to

amend their suit prayer, so as to seek the relief of delivery of possession,

cannot be held against them. At best, it was an omission on their part which

was not fatal.

18. 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 [See Kanshi Ram vs. Om Prakash Jawal & Ors. 6

and Gobind Ram vs. Gian Chand7].

19. Given the dubious conduct of Krishan Gopal and his so-called tenant,

Arun Kalia, we have no doubt 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. Not content therewith, they

also followed it up with registered sale transactions, which were nevertheless

hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the doctrine of lis

pendens. The claims of Arun Kalia and his cohort, therefore, have no legs to

stand upon. Krishan Gopal also cannot maintain a plea at this stage that the 6 (1996) 4 SCC 593 7 (2000) 7 SCC 548

12 plaintiffs are not entitled to specific performance of their suit agreement dating

back to the year 2001 by citing escalation of land prices.

20. However, balancing the interests of the parties, given the fact that the

suit land is a fairly large extent of over 9 acres, and also the cause of justice,

we are of the opinion 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, Krishan Gopal should be paid a further sum of

₹25,00,000/- towards the sale consideration. This amount shall be deposited

by the plaintiffs or their legal representatives, as the case may be, with the

Executing Court within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this judgment. Thereupon, the Executing Court shall proceed with the matter

and pass appropriate orders to give effect to the decree dated 21.10.2008 in

Suit No. 508 of 20.04.2002.

21. The two registered sale deeds dated 29.05.2002 executed by Krishan

Gopal in favour of Arun Kalia and, in consequence, the two registered sale

deeds dated 04.04.2012 executed by Arun Kalia in favour of Krishan Dev

Pathak and Kamla Dev Pathak in relation to the suit land are declared null

and void. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the

jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to enable him/her to make necessary corrections

in the relevant records, in terms of Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act,

1963.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

Status quo orders, granted in both cases, shall stand vacated.

13 In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.

..............................., J.

Sanjay Kumar

..............................., J.

K.V. Viswanathan July 15, 2025 New Delhi.

14