Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-12-15 allowed

Moideenkutty vs Abraham George

Bench: 2 — Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

In Brief

A landowner agreed to sell approximately 77 acres for Rs. 4.45 crores. The buyer paid an advance of Rs. 50 lakhs. The buyer later discovered the property was subject to a substantial undisclosed bank mortgage (equitable mortgage), contradicting the contract's assurance that the land was free from encumbrances. The seller initially promised remedies and later reduced the sale price by Rs. 35 lakhs. When the buyer withheld further payment, the seller sued for damages, claiming he lost Rs. 77.50 lakhs from a forced resale. The Supreme Court held that the seller's non-disclosure of the material encumbrance amounted to actionable fraud, entitling the buyer to a refund. The High Court had relied on an isolated cross-examination admission suggesting the buyer knew of the mortgage before meeting the seller, which was logically impossible and thus unreliable. The Court restored the trial court's decree for refund of Rs. 65.43 lakhs with interest, finding no valid set-off.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Contract Law Fraud and Misrepresentation Specific Performance and Relief Evidence Set-off and Limitation

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login