Case at a Glance
In 1975, the owner of agricultural land near Agra agreed by a registered agreement to sell about 5 bighas for Rs 20,000, taking Rs 5,000 as advance. The trial court decreed specific performance in 1979 and the buyer took a court-executed sale and possession that year. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree; the High Court found the defence “cooked-up” but only enhanced the refund to Rs 15 lakh. The Supreme Court restored the 1979 trial court decree, held that the buyer’s possession cannot be interfered with, and ordered the Rs 15 lakh deposited by the seller’s side to be returned to it with accrued interest.
By a registered agreement dated 16 June 1975, the defendant agreed to sell about 5 bighas of agricultural land roughly 3 km from Agra for Rs 20,000, of which Rs 5,000 was paid as advance. The defendant owned 7 bighas and had already sold 2 bighas to a person who later deposed as PW3; the remaining 5 bighas were the suit property. The defendant pleaded that the transaction was really a loan, the agreement being only security to be cancelled on repayment with interest; that the agreement was not read over to him; and that sanction was required because the land lay within the urban agglomeration of Agra.
The trial court, by judgment dated 28 February 1979, found the agreement proved through the plaintiff and the attesting witnesses, noted that the ‘not read over’ plea had not been pleaded in the written statement, and held that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not cover agricultural land. It decreed specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on payment of the balance consideration. A court-executed sale followed on 7 June 1979 and the plaintiff has been in possession since. The First Appellate Court reversed, finding nothing to show the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, and ordered the advance returned with interest. In second appeal, the High Court found the trial court correct but enhanced the refund to Rs 15,00,000 to settle equities.
The Key Question Before the Court
When the High Court itself finds the seller’s defence to be a “cooked-up” attempt to frustrate a sale agreement, and the buyer has been in possession under a court-executed sale since 1979, should the decree for specific performance be restored instead of ordering a refund?
Why Equity Favoured the Buyer
The Bench noted that the High Court had found the trial court’s conclusions correct and had described the defence as a “cooked-up defense to frustrate the sale agreement”, yet had chosen to settle equities by a larger refund. The Court referred to Pratap Lakshman Muchandi v. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa, (2008) 01 SC CK 0063, (2008) 12 SCC 67, where, in view of a long lapse of time, the sale was allowed on an enhanced balance consideration rather than being denied.
The Court recorded that offers and counter-offers between the parties had not been accepted, and that the plaintiff was unwilling to give up land he had held since 1979, when the court-executed sale came to fruition. The judgment notes that the plaintiff had parted with Rs 20,000 decades earlier. “Equity, hence, has to be applied in favour of the plaintiff”, the Court said, holding that the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court were to be reversed and the trial court’s decree restored.
What the Court Actually Held
- The judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court were reversed and the trial court’s decree for specific performance was restored.
- The plaintiff’s possession, held since the court-executed sale of 1979, “cannot be interfered with”.
- The Rs 15,00,000 deposited by the defendant’s side after the High Court judgment is to be refunded to it, with any interest accrued, within one month.
- The appeal was allowed and pending applications were rejected.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows the Supreme Court restoring specific performance where a seller’s defence has been found to be an afterthought, rather than converting the buyer’s right into money.
- Long, settled possession under a court-executed sale weighed heavily in the equitable balance.
- It is a reminder that a refund, even an enhanced one, is not an automatic substitute for performance.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Buyers
- A registered agreement proved through attesting witnesses can carry a specific performance suit even decades later.
- If you have taken possession under a court-executed sale, that possession is a strong equitable factor.
- Do not readily accept a money refund in place of performance if the seller’s defence is weak.
For Counsel
- A ‘loan-and-security’ defence must be pleaded and proved; here it was found to be cooked-up.
- A plea not taken in the written statement, like ‘not read over’, may be shut out.
- Cite Pratap Lakshman Muchandi on long delay and equitable adjustment in specific performance.
Key Takeaways
- The 1979 decree for specific performance was restored.
- The buyer’s possession since 1979 cannot be disturbed.
- The Rs 15 lakh deposit goes back to the seller’s side with interest.
- Equity was applied in favour of the buyer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court refuse specific performance and order a refund instead?
Courts have discretion, but here the Supreme Court held that equity favoured the buyer, who had been in possession since a court-executed sale in 1979, and restored the trial court’s decree instead of the High Court’s enhanced refund.
Does the Urban Land Ceiling Act apply to agricultural land?
The trial court held that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not cover agricultural land, and rejected the sanction objection; the Supreme Court restored that decree.
What happened to the Rs 15 lakh deposit?
The defendant’s side had deposited Rs 15,00,000 after the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court directed it to be refunded to the defendant’s side, with any interest accrued, within one month.
Conclusion
Sobaran Singh v. Gordhan Singh, (2026) 09 SC CK 3207 closes a dispute that began with a registered agreement in 1975. The Supreme Court declined to dislodge a buyer who had been in possession for over four decades under a court-executed sale, restoring the decree the trial court had granted in 1979.
Practical takeaway: Where a seller’s defence is found to be fabricated and the buyer has long been in possession under a decree, courts may prefer performance over a monetary substitute.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com