SHYAM KUMAR INANI vs VINOD AGRAWAL — C.A. No. 2845/2015

Case under Civil Law : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Matters Arising Out of Suit for Specific Performance, Declaration, Injunction, Possession or Cancellation of Deeds/documents Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010124702012

Filing Date

10-Apr-2012

Registration No

C.A. No. 2845/2015

Diary Number

12470/2012

Order Date

12-Nov-2024

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2024 INSC 865

Disposal Type

Appeals Allowed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Law : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – matters arising out of suit for specific performance, declaration, injunction, possession or cancellation of deeds/documents Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHYAM KUMAR INANI

    Adv. MUSHTAQ AHMAD (Dead / Retired / Elevated) YADAV NARENDER SINGH[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VINOD AGRAWAL

    Adv. AKSHAT SHRIVASTAVA[R-6.4] AKSHAT SHRIVASTAVA[R-6.3] AKSHAT SHRIVASTAVA[R-6.2] AKSHAT SHRIVASTAVA[R-6.1] DIVYAKANT LAHOTI[R-7] DIVYAKANT LAHOTI[R-5] VANDANA SEHGAL[R-9] YUGANDHARA PAWAR JHA[R-4] SHAKIL AHMED SYED (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Nov-2024

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Nov-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 12-Nov-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

  5. 24-Jul-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 24-Jul-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  7. 15-May-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 15-May-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  9. 08-May-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 08-May-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  11. 02-May-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 02-May-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  13. 24-Apr-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 24-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  15. 18-Apr-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 18-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  17. 20-Mar-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 20-Mar-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

  19. 06-Mar-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 06-Mar-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  21. 29-Feb-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 29-Feb-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  23. 28-Feb-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  24. 12-Feb-2024

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 02-Jan-2023

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 02-Jan-2023

    Ordinary

    Registrar

  27. 03-Nov-2022

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 03-Nov-2022

    IA

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  29. 13-Jul-2022

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 13-Jul-2022

    Fixed Date by Court

    Registrar (J-IV)

  31. 19-Apr-2022

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  32. 19-Apr-2022

    Ordinary

    Registrar (J-IV)

  33. 01-Feb-2022

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  34. 01-Feb-2022

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

  35. 01-Feb-2022

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

  36. 10-Dec-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  37. 10-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 24-Feb-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 24-Feb-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 08-Oct-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 14-Aug-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  42. 07-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  43. 09-Apr-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  44. 23-Jan-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  45. 20-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  46. 03-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  47. 03-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  48. 17-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  49. 07-Dec-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  50. 19-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  51. 18-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  52. 06-Aug-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  53. 30-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  54. 10-Apr-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2845/2015

  55. [ 2024 INSC 865 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal Court: Supreme Court of India Citation: 2024 INSC 865 | Civil Appeal No. 2845/2015 Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decree for specific performance. The defendants (legal heirs of Sushila Devi) must execute sale deeds in favor of the appellants for agricultural land in Bhopal worth approximately Rs. 5,78,000. Key Facts - Six plaintiffs executed Agreements to Sell dated 30.08.1990 with Sushila Devi - Full consideration was paid (~Rs. 5-90K each) and possession was delivered - Sushila Devi died 25.12.1992; her legal heirs refused to execute sale deeds - Defendants instead applied for mutation in their names; plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance in May 1995 - Defendants sold the property to third parties (18.01.2001) in violation of interim injunction - Trial Court decreed the suit; High Court reversed and dismissed it Core Reasoning The Court found the Agreement to Sell was validly proved through credible evidence (registered Power of Attorney, original title deed, land revenue records, and witness testimony), while defendants failed to substantiate fraud allegations. The Court rejected the High Court's adverse inferences regarding plaintiffs' failure to personally testify, finding the Power of Attorney holder (K.D. Maheshwari) had direct personal knowledge and was competent to testify. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case