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

2001 Supreme(SC) 1503

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, D.P.MOHAPATRA
Antonysami – Appellant
Versus
Arulanandam Pillai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Is the execution petition filed by the appellant barred by limitation is the question that arises for determination in this appeal. The High Court having answered the question in the affirmative the decree-holder has filed this appeal assailing the order of the High Court.

2. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the points raised may be shortly stated thus:

The predecessor in interest of the decree-holder filed the suit against the judgment-debtor, O.S.No.35/1965, for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 7.2.1964. The suit property was described as 13 grounds and 491 sq.ft. on measurement and demarcation. The suit was decreed on 23rd July, 1966. The said decree reads as follows:-

"(1) The defendant do measure and demarcate the boundaries for 13 grounds and 491 sq. ft. in the property described hereunder on or before 23.9.1966

(2) That the plaintiff do deposit into court on or before 23.9.1966 the balance of the sale price for 13 grounds and 491 sq. ft. on measurement and demarcation.

(3) That on such measurement and demarcation and fixation of the price and on deposit 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