Summary of the Judgment: Krishan Gopal vs. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Krishan Gopal vs. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 850
Judges: Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Date: July 15, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment discusses the following legal provisions:

• Specific Relief Act, 1963:
  Section 22: Power of the court to grant possession, partition, or refund of earnest money in suits for specific performance.

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
  Section 52 (Doctrine of Lis Pendens): Prohibits transfer of property during pending litigation affecting its title.

• Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
  Order XXI, Rule 97: Objections to execution of decrees by third-party claimants.
  Section 47: Questions to be determined by the executing court.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Nature of Dispute: The case revolves around the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 for agricultural land (9 acres) in Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

• Parties Involved:
  Plaintiffs (Respondents): Gurmeet Kaur (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) and her two sons.
  Defendant (Appellant): Krishan Gopal (original owner of the land).
  Third Parties: Arun Kalia (alleged tenant) and subsequent purchasers (Krishan Dev Pathak & Kamla Dev Pathak).

• Key Issue: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement despite disputes over possession and subsequent fraudulent sales by Krishan Gopal.

• Supreme Court’s Ruling:
  Upheld the decree for specific performance but modified the sale consideration (additional ₹25 lakhs to Krishan Gopal due to land price escalation).
  Declared subsequent sales (2002 & 2012) void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Factual Background

1. Agreement to Sell (2001):
   Krishan Gopal agreed to sell the land to Gurmeet Kaur & sons for ₹10 lakhs (₹1 lakh paid as earnest money).
   Clause: Krishan Gopal was to hand over possession at the time of sale deed execution (by 31.01.2002).

2. Breach of Contract:
   Krishan Gopal failed to execute the sale deed on the agreed date.
   Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance (April 2002), claiming they were put in possession and spent ₹8 lakhs to improve the land.

3. Fraudulent Transactions by Krishan Gopal:
   May 2002: Sold the same land to Arun Kalia (alleged tenant) via two sale deeds (₹11.5 lakhs).
   April 2012: Arun Kalia sold it to Pathak couple for ₹60 lakhs.

4. Litigation Timeline:
   Trial Court (2008): Decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs.
   Appellate Courts (2011–2012): Upheld the decree.
   Execution Proceedings (2016): Objections by Arun Kalia & Pathaks rejected (held as pendente lite transfers).

B. Key Legal Issues & Supreme Court’s Analysis

(i) Readiness & Willingness of Plaintiffs

• Plaintiffs’ Claim: They were financially capable (bank records showed sufficient funds) and approached Krishan Gopal on 25.01.2002 for execution.

• Defendant’s Defense: Alleged plaintiffs never paid the balance ₹9 lakhs.

• Court’s View:
  Krishan Gopal’s inconsistent statements (claimed he visited Sub-Registrar’s office but later denied) weakened his case.
  Legal Principle: Readiness & willingness can be inferred from conduct; plaintiffs need not physically produce money (Nathulal v. Phoolchand).

(ii) Fraudulent Transfers & Lis Pendens

• Arun Kalia’s Claim: Alleged an oral tenancy agreement (1998) and later purchased the land in 2002.

• Court’s Findings:
  Krishan Gopal never disclosed the tenancy or 2002 sales in his written statement (December 2002).
  Section 52 (Transfer of Property Act): Sales during pending litigation are void.
  Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Pathaks (2012 purchasers) had no valid title as the suit was pending since 2002.

(iii) Possession & Amendment of Pleadings

• Plaintiffs’ Mistake: Initially claimed possession but later relied on Tahsildar’s order (2002) showing Arun Kalia as cultivator.

• Court’s Relaxation:
  Section 22 (Specific Relief Act): Court can grant possession even if not pleaded (Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal).
  Omission not fatal as justice required delivery of possession.

(iv) Equity & Modification of Decree

• Land Price Escalation: Supreme Court acknowledged a hike in land value (2001–2025) but refused to deny specific performance.

• Balanced Relief: Directed plaintiffs to pay additional ₹25 lakhs (total consideration = ₹34 lakhs) to Krishan Gopal.

C. Final Decision

1. Specific Performance Upheld: Plaintiffs to pay ₹9 lakhs (deposited) + ₹25 lakhs within 12 weeks.

2. Subsequent Sales Declared Void:
   2002 sales to Arun Kalia.
   2012 sales to Pathak couple.

3. Possession to Plaintiffs: Executing Court to ensure transfer.

5. Key Takeaways

1. Specific Performance: Courts favor enforcing agreements if plaintiffs prove readiness & willingness.

2. Fraudulent Transfers: Sales during litigation are void under Section 52, TP Act.

3. Equitable Relief: Even if pleadings are defective, courts may grant possession under Section 22, Specific Relief Act.

4. Price Escalation: Not a ground to deny specific performance, but courts may adjust consideration for fairness.

This judgment reinforces contractual sanctity while curbing collusive transactions during litigation.