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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.