A brief but pointed hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday brought new attention to a land dispute from 1996 that has traveled through multiple legal layers over nearly three decades. The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard the plea of two landowners from Karnataka who challenged a recent High Court order directing them to execute a sale deed in favor of the buyer based on an old sale agreement.
The courtroom atmosphere was noticeably calm but tense, with both sides acknowledging the unusual age of the dispute and the steep rise in land value around Bengaluru over the years.
Background
The issue goes back to an agreement for sale dated 10 November 1996, involving agricultural land measuring about 2 acres and 1 gunta in Survey No. 537, Anekal taluk.
The buyer had approached the civil court seeking specific performance-which means asking the court to compel the landowners to carry out the sale. The trial court dismissed the suit in March 2022. However, the Karnataka High Court later reversed that decision in July 2025, ordering the landowners to execute a registered sale deed within eight weeks, after receiving the remaining payment.
This reversal triggered the landowners’ appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Senior advocate for the petitioners argued that almost 30 years had passed since the original agreement. He noted that land prices in the region have changed “beyond imagination,” making the original terms commercially unrealistic today.
He told the bench that his clients were open to a negotiated settlement. “Either the petitioners will compensate the respondents to close the matter, or the respondents must pay a reasonable enhanced amount before getting the deed,” he proposed.
The bench listened without rushing to conclusions.
At one point, Justice Pardiwala commented in a mild tone, “When decades pass, the context around such agreements changes. The Court cannot ignore realities.”
However, the bench did not express any final view on whether the High Court’s ruling should be stayed or modified at this stage.
Decision
The Supreme Court issued notice in the case, giving the respondent time to reply. The counsel for the primary respondent waived formal notice and agreed to proceed directly.
Importantly, the Court ordered that both sides must maintain the status quo regarding the nature, character, and possession of the property.
This means no sale, construction, alteration, or change in ownership can take place until the matter is heard again.
The Court has listed the matter for the next hearing after four weeks.
The order stops here, without deciding on whether the sale deed should ultimately be executed or renegotiated.
Case: Padmamma & Another vs R. Santhosh & Others (2025, Supreme Court, Land Sale Specific Performance Dispute)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Original Dispute: Enforcement of a 1996 Agreement to Sell agricultural land.
Property: 2 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No. 537, Anekal, Karnataka.
Trial Court (2022): Dismissed the buyer’s suit for specific performance.
High Court (2025): Reversed trial court; directed sellers to execute sale deed within 8 weeks.
Petitioners: Original landowners (defendants) challenging the High Court ruling.
Respondents: Original buyers seeking sale deed execution.