In Brief
This judgment comprises two decisions on the same case. In the main Civil Appeal, the Court modified a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, finding that the transaction was in reality a loan arrangement where land was offered as collateral security. Though the lower courts had found the agreement genuine, the Court found this finding perverse based on circumstantial evidence and ordered refund of the amount paid (Rs. 3,26,000) with 6% interest. In the subsequent Writ Petition, the Court dismissed a challenge to the Registration Act provisions as an abuse of process, holding that a final judgment cannot be reopened via Article 32 writ petition and operates as res judicata.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.