In a landmark ruling on property fraud, the Supreme Court has imposed a Rs.10 lakh penalty on a vendor who, after selling a property to one party, deceitfully sold the same property to another while the first sale deed was pending registration. The cost is to be split between the vendor and the second purchaser.
“The respondent no.2 (vendor) appears to be a dishonest person,” declared the bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. They highlighted the vendor’s collusion with the second respondent to execute a sale deed for land already transferred. “The facts of this case demand that the suit be decreed with exemplary costs.”
The court’s decision reflects the suffering of ordinary buyers who fall victim to such deceptive practices. The bench emphasized that no one should benefit from their wrongdoing, underscoring the need for justice to be visibly served to the weak.
“Adjudicating such cases goes beyond mere property disputes; it involves maintaining trust in the legal system. Justice must ensure that no one profits from their own wrongs, allowing the weak to prevail over the strong,” the court noted.
Case Background
In 1985, the vendor executed a sale deed in favor of the appellants and his minor brother, which remained unregistered due to a stamp duty deficiency. In 2010, the same vendor sold the property to a subsequent purchaser. Upon discovering this, the appellants registered their sale deed in 2011. However, interference from the second purchaser led them to seek a permanent injunction and cancellation of the second sale deed.
The Trial Court dismissed their suit in 2016, citing the minors’ involvement during the sale deed execution. On appeal, the District Judge overturned this decision, which was then contested by the second purchaser in the High Court. The High Court ruled in favor of the second purchaser in 2022, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, decreeing the suit and imposing a Rs.10 lakh exemplary cost on the respondents, condemning the vendor’s deceitful actions.
