SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 408

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Though the respondents have been served, the second respondent has filed a photocopy of the Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 but when the Registry directed him to produce the original he failed to do the same. He is also not present in the Court. One Shyam Lal, son of Prabhu Lal Kayasth had laid the suit for specific performance; the Civil Judge dismissed the suit but on appeal No. 16/1973 by judgment and decree dated October 18, 1973, the suit was decreed as under :

"Appeal is accepted with cost. Judgment and decree under appeal is set aside and suit for specific performance of contract is decreed with costs that defendants as per contract Ex.1 at 1.9.66 shall execute sale deed within 3 months and plaintiff shall pay the balance sum to the defendant in the said period, otherwise plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed of the dispute property as per the law depositing the balance amount in the court within two months."

3. In the suit there was prayer for specific performance with possession of the property in prayer 1 thus :

"It be decreed that defendants should performs their part of the contract regarding the land a












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top