Supreme Court Orders Rectification of Sale Deed in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court of India delivered an important judgment in the case of Virendrabhai Devjibhai Patel vs. Keshavbhai Makanbhai & Ors., addressing a dispute concerning an alleged violation of an interlocutory injunction. The ruling focused on the sale of a disputed property despite a court order restraining such transactions.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when an interlocutory injunction was granted on February 21, 2007, by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat, in RCS No. 59/2007. The injunction was issued to prevent any interference with the plaintiff’s ownership rights and to restrain the defendants from selling or encumbering the land in question, which measured 20,700 square meters.

Despite the injunction, an extent of 6,900 square meters of the property was allegedly transferred by the defendants, leading to an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for contempt of court.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant, Virendrabhai Devjibhai Patel, contended that:

• The sale of 6,900 square meters of the property violated the court’s injunction.
• The transaction was an attempt to frustrate the plaintiff’s rights.
• The sale deed should be canceled, and the property restored to its original status before the injunction.
• Legal consequences should follow for the contemptuous act committed by the defendants.

Arguments of the Respondents

The respondents countered with the following arguments:

• The sale was not in violation of the injunction since only an undivided share of the land was transferred.
• The purchasers were not originally part of the suit and were impleaded only later.
• The High Court was correct in ruling that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the cancellation of the sale deed.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

After examining the case, the Supreme Court made several critical observations:

“Going by the injunction granted by the Trial Court, it is fairly clear that the defendants, if at all, could have made any transfer, it could have been only the undivided share and not the specific portion of the property, which is certainly in violation of the spirit of the order.”

The Court further noted:

• The defendants had committed a violation of the order by transferring a specific portion rather than an undivided share.
• The sale deed needed rectification to reflect that only an undivided share was transferred.
• While the High Court was correct in ruling that an order for cancellation was beyond the trial court’s powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, rectification of the sale deed was necessary to correct the error.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The parties to the sale deed dated February 19, 2008, were directed to execute a rectification deed within one month.
• The rectification deed should clarify that the transfer of 6,900 square meters was an undivided share and not a specific portion of the land.
• The trial court must verify that the rectification is in accordance with the spirit of the Supreme Court’s order.
• No further alienation or encumbrance of the entire 20,700 square meters property was permitted until the final disposal of the suit.
• The suit was to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within one year.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

This ruling establishes several important legal principles:

1. Limits of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC: While courts can punish for contempt, they cannot order the cancellation of sale deeds under this provision.
2. Respecting Injunctions: Transactions made in defiance of court orders are subject to judicial correction.
3. Role of Rectification Deeds: Rectifying erroneous sale deeds is a lawful way to address violations without outright cancellation.
4. Preventing Further Encumbrances: Courts can impose restrictions to prevent further alienation of disputed properties.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for property law and contempt proceedings:

• It reinforces the principle that sales in violation of court orders will not be upheld.
• It establishes that the proper remedy for wrongful sales is rectification, not outright cancellation.
• It discourages attempts to bypass judicial injunctions by ensuring corrective measures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Virendrabhai Devjibhai Patel vs. Keshavbhai Makanbhai & Ors. clarifies the legal approach to transactions made in violation of injunction orders. By ordering the rectification of the sale deed rather than its cancellation, the Court balanced legal compliance with practical property law principles. This case serves as an essential precedent for future property disputes involving contempt of court allegations.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Virendrabhai Devjibh vs Keshavbhai Makanbhai Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-10-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category