Published on: 10 July 2023 at 16:52 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that “Repurchase of Property” is not available in the absence of any words or expressions in the documents indicating prohibition on assignment or transfer of right of repurchase of the property. It is held that the benefits of a contract of repurchase must be assignable, unless the terms of the contract are such as to show that the right of repurchase is personal to the vendor. In the latter case it will be for the person who pleads that the contract is not enforceable, to show that the intention of the parties thereto was that it was to be enforced only by the persons named therein and not by the assignee.
21. It can be summed up from the aforesaid judgments that the condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so. Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable. The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature. The assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without the consent of the other party. No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document. The benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to the person on whom the obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
