Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023)

In this judgement Supreme Court decides various factors regarding the sale deed and permanent injunction also decided the factor of validity of sale deed and reaffirm various principles. the facts of the cases as follows: 

• Respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favor of Appellants in 1985. 
  • The registration was delayed due to a deficiency in stamp duty.
• In 2010, Respondent No. 2 executed another sale deed for the same property in favor of Respondent No. 1.
• The first sale deed was registered in 2011 after clearing stamp duty.
• Respondent No. 1 claimed rights to the property, leading the appellants to file a suit for cancellation of the second sale deed and to seek a permanent injunction.

1. Whether the sale deed was valid despite delays in registration? 
2. Whether the appellants' minority at the time of execution affected the validity of the sale deed? 
3. Whether Respondent No. 1 could claim protection as a bona fide purchaser despite the prior sale deed? 
4. Whether the second sale deed could be upheld given the vendor's lack of rights to resell? 

The Supreme Court allowed the appellants' appeal, ruling in their favor. 

1. The first sale deed (1985) was deemed valid as it was executed and registered after rectifying the stamp duty deficiency.
2. Respondent No. 1 could not be considered a bona fide purchaser because the vendor lacked ownership rights after the first sale.
3. The second sale deed executed in 2010 was declared void.
4. Exemplary costs of Rs. 10 lakhs were imposed on the respondents for their mala fide conduct.

• A sale deed, once executed, severs the vendor's rights regardless of registration status. 
•  Protection under this doctrine does not extend to subsequent buyers if the vendor lacked ownership.
• Mala fide attempts to gain double benefits by exploiting registration deficiencies are penalized to uphold legal integrity.
• Transactions involving minors must demonstrate good faith and guardian representation.
• This decision is significant for property law, ensuring transparency and fairness in transactions while discouraging manipulation of legal loopholes.