![Specific Performance Decree Restored as Equity Favours Buyer in Possession Since 1979: Supreme Court in Sobaran Singh v. Gordhan Singh [2026 INSC 1005]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: Where the High Court in Second Appeal upholds the Trial Court's findings in favour of a buyer in a specific performance suit, it cannot still deny the decree and "settle equities" by ordering a large refund. The Supreme Court restored the 1979 decree for specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell agricultural land near Agra, holding that equity lay with the buyer who paid over four and a half decades ago and has been in possession since 1979.
In Sobaran Singh (Dead) Through LRs. v. Gordhan Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. (2026 INSC 1005), the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Allahabad High Court and restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 16.06.1975 (paras 2, 10). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that, since the sale had already been executed through Court in 1979 and the plaintiff had been in possession since then, equity had to be applied in favour of the plaintiff, and the Rs.15,00,000 deposited by the defendant after the High Court judgment is to be refunded to the defendant (paras 7, 9, 10).
Status: First Appellate Court's decree and High Court's Second Appeal judgment set aside; Trial Court's decree dated 28.02.1979 restored; appeal allowed (paras 7, 10, 11).
Headnote: Specific Performance Restored After Four Decades
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Suit for specific performance – Registered agreement to sell agricultural land – Defence of loan transaction rejected – Readiness and willingness – Second Appeal – High Court upholding Trial Court's findings but directing enhanced refund to "maintain equity" – Sale deed already executed through Court – Possession since 1979 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Agricultural land.
Held: (i) The Trial Court rightly found the agreement to sell proved by the plaintiff and the attesting witnesses, and rejected the defence that it was a mere security for a loan (paras 4–5).
(ii) The Trial Court also rightly held that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 did not apply to agricultural land, and that the discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was in order (para 6).
(iii) The First Appellate Court reversed the decree merely because nothing was produced to show readiness and willingness, while the High Court found the Trial Court correct and the defence "cooked-up", yet directed payment of Rs.15,00,000 to the plaintiff instead of the decree (para 8).
(iv) Since the 1975 agreement had come to fruition with the sale executed by the Court in 1979, equity favoured the plaintiff who paid more than four and a half decades back and obtained ownership and possession (para 9).
(v) The Trial Court's decree was restored, the plaintiff's possession protected, and the Rs.15,00,000 deposited by the defendant directed to be refunded to the defendant with accrued interest within one month (para 10).
(paras 4–10)
Case Details: Sobaran Singh v. Gordhan Singh (2026 INSC 1005)
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed; First Appellate Court's and High Court's judgments set aside; Trial Court's decree for specific performance restored; defendant's deposit of Rs.15,00,000 to be refunded to the defendant with accrued interest within one month.
Case: Sobaran Singh (Dead) Through LRs. v. Gordhan Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1005
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12945 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27465 of 2016)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 15 September 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Order; no individual author named)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
Impugned Order: High Court judgment in Second Appeal which upheld the Trial Court's findings but enhanced the refund of the advance from Rs.5,000 to Rs.15,00,000 with interest, affirming the First Appellate Court's reversal of the decree (paras 2, 8)
Counsel: Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Senior Counsel, for the appellant; Sri Jetendra Singh, Counsel, for the respondents (para 3)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court were reversed and the Trial Court's decree for specific performance restored (para 10).
- Once the High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings that the agreement was proved and the defence was cooked-up, there was no basis to deny the decree by ordering a refund instead (paras 8, 10).
- Equity favoured the buyer, who paid the consideration over four and a half decades ago and obtained ownership and possession through the Court-executed sale in 1979 (para 9).
- The plaintiff's possession cannot be interfered with (para 10).
- The Rs.15,00,000 deposited by the defendant after the High Court judgment is to be refunded to the defendant with accrued interest within one month (para 10).
Brief Facts of the Case
The suit property was about 5 bighas of agricultural land about 3 km from Agra. The plaintiff (appellant) agreed to purchase it for a total consideration of Rs.20,000 under a registered agreement to sell dated 16.06.1975 and paid an advance of Rs.5,000 (paras 2, 4).
The defendant (respondent) claimed that the transaction was a mere loan, that the agreement was only a security to be cancelled on repayment, and that the agreement was not read to him before execution. The Trial Court found the last plea was not taken in the written statement (para 4).
The Trial Court found the agreement proved by the plaintiff (PW1) and the attesting witnesses (PW2 and PW3). PW3, who had bought 2 bighas from the defendant out of his 7 bighas, deposed that the defendant agreed to sell because he needed money and was not cultivating the land himself. The plea that sanction was needed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was rejected as the land was agricultural (paras 5–6).
The suit was decreed on 28.02.1979 and the sale was executed through Court on 07.06.1979; the plaintiff is said to be in possession since 1979 (para 7).
The First Appellate Court reversed the decree for want of proof of readiness and willingness and directed refund of the advance with interest. In Second Appeal, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings but directed the defendant to pay Rs.15,00,000 to the plaintiff, purportedly to maintain equity (paras 2, 8).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether, having upheld the Trial Court's findings in favour of the plaintiff, the High Court could deny specific performance and instead direct an enhanced refund (paras 8, 10).
- On whose side the equities lay, given that the sale had been executed through Court in 1979 and the plaintiff had been in possession since then (para 9).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Agreement proved, defence rejected (paras 4–6): The Trial Court found the registered agreement proved through the plaintiff and the attesting witnesses, rejected the loan defence and the plea under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and found the discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to be in order.
Appellate courts (para 8): The First Appellate Court merely found nothing produced to show readiness and willingness. The High Court clearly found that the Trial Court was correct and that the defendant had made a cooked-up defence to frustrate the agreement, yet attempted to settle equities by directing payment of Rs.15,00,000, far in excess of the Rs.5,000 advance.
Pratap Lakshman Muchandi distinguished on equities (paras 8–9): In the decision relied upon, the Court had allowed the sale with enhanced consideration given the long lapse of time. Here, offers and counter-offers between the parties had failed, and the 1975 agreement had already come to fruition with the sale executed by the Court in 1979.
Equity for the buyer (para 9): Equity had to be applied in favour of the plaintiff, who parted with Rs.20,000 more than four and a half decades back and obtained ownership and possession of the property.
Relief (para 10): The Court reversed the First Appellate Court and the High Court, restored the Trial Court's decree, protected the plaintiff's possession, and directed refund to the defendant of the Rs.15,00,000 deposited by him, with accrued interest, within one month.
Final Outcome and Directions
- The judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court are set aside and the Trial Court's decree restored (para 10).
- The plaintiff's possession is not to be interfered with (para 10).
- The Rs.15,00,000 deposited by the defendant after the High Court judgment shall be refunded to the defendant with any accrued interest within one month (para 10).
- Appeal allowed; pending applications rejected (paras 11–12).
Legal Principle Laid Down
When the agreement to sell is proved, the defence is found to be false and the High Court in Second Appeal upholds the Trial Court's findings, the buyer cannot be denied specific performance merely by directing a larger refund in the name of equity. Where the sale has already been executed through Court and the buyer has held possession for decades, equity lies with the buyer, and the decree for specific performance must be restored.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Others v. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 67 – Considered and distinguished on equities – sale allowed with enhanced consideration given the long lapse of time. Discussed at paras 8–9.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 2: "The suit for specific performance based on a registered agreement to sell dated 16.06.1975, was decreed by the Trial Court."
Para 7: "The plaintiff is said to be in possession of the land from the year 1979."
Para 8: "The First Appellate Court merely found that there was nothing produced to indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court."
Para 9: "Equity, hence, has to be applied in favour of the plaintiff who parted with Rs.20,000/- more than four decades and a half back, and obtained the ownership and possession of the property."
Para 10: "We are, hence, of the opinion that the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court are to be reversed and that of the Trial Court restored."
Para 10: "The plaintiff’s possession at this juncture cannot be interfered with."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For buyers under agreements to sell: A buyer who has proved the agreement and already obtained a Court-executed sale and possession is protected from belated "equity" refunds in appeal (paras 9–10).
- For sellers raising loan defences: A plea that a registered sale agreement was only a loan security, found false on evidence, will not earn a monetary windfall in appeal (paras 4, 8).
- For High Courts in Second Appeal: Upholding the Trial Court's findings while denying the decree and ordering a refund is inconsistent; the decree should follow the findings (paras 8, 10).
- For practitioners: The passage of time and rise in land value do not by themselves shift equity against a buyer who performed his part decades ago (para 9).
FAQs on Specific Performance and Equity
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Sobaran Singh v. Gordhan Singh?
It restored the Trial Court's 1979 decree for specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell, setting aside the First Appellate Court and High Court judgments (para 10).
2. Why did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order of Rs.15 lakh?
Because the High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings in the buyer's favour, yet tried to settle equities by a large payment; the Supreme Court held equity lay with the buyer who had paid and obtained possession decades ago (paras 8–10).
3. What happens to the Rs.15,00,000 deposited by the defendant?
It is to be refunded to the defendant with any interest accrued on it, within one month (para 10).
4. Did the Urban Land Ceiling Act bar the sale?
No. The Trial Court held that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not include agricultural land, and the decree based on that finding was restored (paras 6, 10).
5. Is the buyer's possession protected?
Yes. The Court said the plaintiff's possession at this juncture cannot be interfered with (para 10).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1005, Sobaran Singh v. Gordhan Singh, specific performance, agreement to sell 1975, Section 20 Specific Relief Act, readiness and willingness, second appeal, equity, refund of advance, Pratap Lakshman Muchandi, Agra agricultural land, Urban Land Ceiling Act, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Sobaran Singh v. Gordhan Singh
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).