In Brief
The plaintiff-appellants sought specific performance of six separate agreements to sell agricultural land dated 30.08.1990, executed by Sushila Devi. The Trial Court decreed the suits, but the High Court reversed, holding the agreement invalid due to vagueness, low consideration, lack of plaintiff testimony, and limitation bar. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding: the agreement was validly proved through credible witnesses with personal knowledge; the defendants failed to establish forgery despite burden of proof; the suit was timely filed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act; and the transfer to subsequent purchasers in violation of an interim injunction could not defeat the appellants' prior contractual rights. The Court restored the Trial Court's decree.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.