Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHAGWANDAS FATECHAND DASWANI AND ORS. versus H.P.A. INTERNATIONAL AND ORS.

Decided
13 January 2000
Judges listed
V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 254 · 2000 INSC 19
Also cited as
  • (2000) 2 SCC 13 (10 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2000 SC 775 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The defendant-appellants, who are the subsequent purchasers, arc in appeal. This appeal is directed against thi: judgment of Madras High Court dated 24th January, 1994 when:by the dt:cree for spi:cific performance of the agreement passed by the trial court was affirmed.

p. 255, margin A

On 26th June, 1977 respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with first ri:spondcnt hi:rcin, for transfer of bis life interest in the property in dispute. On 29.12.79, respondent No. 2 transferred the rights in favour of the dt:fendant-appellants who are the subsequent purchasi:rs for consideration of Rs. 4.40 lakhs. Under such circumstances, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 brought a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial court and the appeal preferrt:d to the High Court was dismissed. It is in this way the ddendant-appellants are before us.

p. 255, margin B

Learned Attorney Gt:neral appearing for the appellants urged that, bcfori: the High Court, the hearing of the appeal was concluded on 22nd March, 1989 but the judgmt:nt was delivtred on 24th January, 1994 - nearly five years aftt:r the hearing was concludt:d, and this long delay in delivt:ry of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal. Learned Attorney General has also relied upon decision of this Court in the case of K.unwar Singh and Others v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 125. At presi:nt, we are not deposed to go into this broad qut:stion as urged by the learned Attorney General. Howewr, it is correct to this extent that long dt:!ay in delivery of judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the mind of parties to a case. Moreover, the appellants whose appeals have been dismissed by the High Court may have the apprehension that the argumt:nts raised at the bar havt: not been reflected or appreciated while dictating the judgment - nearly after five years. This is fairly not disputed by learned senior counsel, Shri K. Parasaran, appearing for respondent No. l. Wt:, therefon:, on this short question, set aside tht: judgment under appt:al without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cast: and remit the case to the High Court for deciding the appt:al afrt:sh, on merits. In view of the fact, that the matter has been pending for a considerable period of time, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, if possible, within six months.

p. 255, margin C

Bdore we part with the case, we would like to observe that when this appt:al was filed in this Court, the interim relief prayed for by the appel- !ants was refused. As a consequence, respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, and respondent No. 1 came in possession of the property and since then, he continues to be in possession. Under such circumstances, respondent No. 1 being the lawful owner, so long the decn:e remains intact, is entit:ed to continue in possession over the property in dispute. Learned Attorney General u~ged that, in case respondent No. 1 is to continue in possession over the property, the interest of the appellants may also to be protected. It is then, learned counsd for the parties madt: an agreed statement that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court respondent No. 1 shall not create any third party right in respect of the property in dispute and turther shall deposit the rent/incomt: received from that property in tht: High Court aftt:r deducting the maintenanct: charges and tdX liabilities which shall be subject to the decision of the appeal in the High Court. Wt: order accordingly.

pp. 255–256, margin G

The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the !As are disposed of accordingly. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 256, margin C