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

1964 Supreme(SC) 17

K.SUBBA RAO, J.R.MUDHOLKAR
Balmukand – Appellant
Versus
Kamla Wati – Respondent


Advocates:
GANPAT RAI, H.L.MITTAL, K.L.Mehta, N.C.CHATTERJI, RAM LUBHAYA OBEROI, S.D.SEKHRI, S.K.MEHTA, S.S.Khanduja

Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is a plaintiff s appeal from the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of 3/20th share of land in certain fields situated in Mauza Faizpur of Batala in the State of Punjab. He had instituted the suit in the court of Sub-Judge- First Class, Batala, who dismissed it in its entirety. Upon appeal the High Court of Punjab, while upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff s claim for specific performance modified the decree of the trial court in regard to one matter. By that modification the High Court ordered the defendants to repay to the plaintiff the earnest money which he had paid when the contract of sale was entered into by him with Pindidas. It may be mentioned that Pindidas died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and his legal representatives were, therefore, substituted in his place. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim for specific performance the plaintiff has come up to this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court, under Art. 133 of the Constitution.

2-3. The relevant facts are these :

The plaintiff owned 79/120th share in Khasra Nos. 494, 495, 496, 497, 1800/501, 1801/501, and 529
















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