Background of the Case
In the case of Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, a civil appeal against the Judgment of the Patna High Court The daughter of the renter and the landlord of the land vendors signed a conditional sale deal. According to the deed, the sellers were expected to refund the entire consideration sum by July 1984; otherwise, the vendee would take sole ownership of the property. The property was thereafter transferred to the appellant by the owner through the execution of a gift deed in the name of his daughter-in-law. Despite the sellers’ and respondents’ willingness to repay Rs. 5000 as per the deed, the appellant denied recording the sale agreement in their names. The District Court and subsequent appellate Court rejected the civil lawsuit that the responding party and the dead owner had brought. As a result of the High Court’s ruling, which it found to be unjust, it reversed the judgments in the second appeal Thus present lawsuit filed aggrieved with the decision of the High Court
Issue
whether the vendor can delegate the right to get the property registered back in the sale deed
Analysis of Court Order
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Supreme Court’s Division Bench concluded that unless the provisions of the papers specify otherwise, the right to repurchase condition in the sale deed would not be personal to the vendor.
The Court further declared that unless the provisions of the agreements specify otherwise, the right to repurchase condition in the sale deed would not be private to the vendor. The Court also said that such an entitlement may always be allocated and that any contract including such a condition would be upheld; the only restriction would be that the right in question could not be personal. No obligation included in a contract may be transferred or assigned without the approval of another party, and no provision of a document may be interpreted as prohibiting such transfer or assignment.
The Court concluded that no provision in the conditional Sale Deed, which was solely referenced in relation to the right of purchase in the matter at hand, prohibited the assignment of the document to any other party. The seller now deceased granted the respondent, his daughter-in-law, his permission to sell the property in the current matter, and also bequeathed her additional assets.
CASE NAME – Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta 2023 SCC OnLine SC 762