In Brief
The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 27 May 1996 to purchase agricultural land from the defendant-tenant. The High Court dismissed the suit and instead ordered refund of the consideration money with 6% interest. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that prior revenue proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had conclusively established that the second defendant was the lawful owner and in possession of the property based on a registered Will. Therefore, the tenant had no authority to sell the land, making specific performance impossible. Refund with interest was the appropriate remedy.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.