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

1996 Supreme(SC) 779

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Kanshi Ram – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Jawal – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated April 18, 1995 of the Delhi High Court made in RFA No. 217/72. The admitted position is that an agreement of sale dated April 7, 1969 was executed to convey the property on the plot of land admeasuring 100 square yards situated in Dayanand Colony. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for Rs.16,000/- and Rs.2,500/- was paid as earnest money. The respondent filed the suit on July 13, 1970 for the specific performance if the agreement and also claimed, alternatively damages for a sum of Rs.12,00/- (Sic Rs.12,000/-) with interest payable thereon. The courts below have granted the decree for specific performance. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly contended that specific performance of the contract is within the discretion of the Court and is not a matter of course. The courts in granting the decree for specific performance should exercise the discretion on sound principles of law. In the event of working out the equities, the courts would in an appropriate case, grant alternative relief, instead of granting the decree for specific performance. In support the





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