In Brief
A dispute over 0.08 cents of land (part of 50 acres) that originated from an agreement dated 1961 and a decree for specific performance obtained in 1970. The respondent obtained a decree for specific performance without impleading earlier registered purchasers (Niraja Devi and Perumal Mudaliar) who had bought the same land before the suit was filed. The respondent also failed to testify in her own case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not exercise appellate jurisdiction without framing a substantial question of law, and that the decree was questionable because obtained behind the back of bona fide purchasers. The respondent's failure to appear as a witness and her manager's unauthorized testimony that contradicted her interests led to an adverse inference. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the suit.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.