V.N.A.S. Chandran vs. S. Venila and Others

This case is about a dispute over buying a property in Ooty. In 2004, the buyer (respondent) agreed to buy land from the owner (appellant) for Rs 2.25 crores and paid Rs 85 lakhs as an advance. However, the buyer's husband, who had a power of attorney, secretly tried to sell the same property to a third party for less money. When the owner found out, he cancelled the agreement. After this, both sides filed criminal cases. Crucially, the buyer's husband filed an FIR demanding his Rs 85 lakhs back, saying they wouldn't have done the deal if they knew about a pending court case on the property. Later, the buyer filed a civil suit demanding that the owner must still transfer the property (specific performance). The Trial Court refused to force the transfer, ordering only a refund of the advance because the buyer was 'blowing hot and cold' by asking for money back in criminal complaints but asking for property in civil court. The High Court reversed this, but the Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that specific performance is a special, fair remedy. To get it, the buyer must prove they had the money ready at all times and must act honestly. Since the buyer took contradictory stands, hid facts, had cheques bounce, and over 20 years had passed, forcing the sale now would be unfair.

In 2004, a buyer agreed to purchase a property in Ooty from its owner and paid an advance. Soon after, the buyer's husband misused a power of attorney to secretly arrange a sale of the same property to another person. The owner cancelled the deal, leading to multiple criminal complaints, including one where the buyer demanded their advance money back.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's judgment. The Court ruled that the buyer cannot get the property because of their dishonest conduct, lack of continuous funds, and the fact that over 20 years have passed. The buyer is only entitled to a refund of their Rs 85 lakhs advance with interest.

This judgment highlights that courts will not help buyers who act dishonestly or try to make secret side-deals behind the seller's back. It clarifies that to win a property transfer case, a buyer must prove they had the required money ready from the very starting date of the agreement until the end of the case.