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

1982 Supreme(SC) 44

R.B.MISRA, A.P.SEN
Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Hazari Lal Kishori Lal – Respondent


Advocates:
R.K.JAIN, S.Bhandan

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document does not directly address circumstances where division by metes and bounds is inconvenient or destructive of the property. However, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of immovable property, a plaintiff may claim partition and separate possession in addition to specific performance, but only in an appropriate case (such as where the property is jointly held by the defendant with others, requiring partition for complete and effective relief), and such relief must be specifically claimed unless amendment of the plaint is allowed at any stage of the proceedings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000195690012][1000195690013]


JUDGMENT

MISRA, J.:— This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 2nd of Sept., 1981 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposing of Execution Second Appeals Nos. 1001 and 1720 of 1977 and Civil Revision No. 1447 of 1978. The petition was heard on 7th of Dec., 1981 at some length and after hearing the counsel for the parties we dismissed the same for reasons to be recorded later. We now proceed to give the reasons.

2. The present petition is a typical example of the desperate effort of the judgment-debtor to ward off the execution of the decree till the bailiff knocks at the door. Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 entered into an agreement with respondents Nos. 1 to 5 on 30th of July. 1967 for sale of certain plots situate behind their shop for Rs. 15,500/-. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 had paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/ as earnest money pursuant to the agreement. The sale deed was agreed to be executed within fifteen days of the agreement. Respondents Nos. 6 to 9, however, executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner Babu Lal in respect of the same property for Rs. 20,000/- on 7th of August, 1967 in defiance of the earlier agreement dated 30th

























































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