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

1988 Supreme(SC) 34

B.C.RAY, K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ram Parkash – Respondent


Advocates:
G.K.BANSAL, HARISH N.SLAVE, N.D.GARG, R.K.GARG, T.U.Mehta

Judgement

RAY, J. :- The defendant-respondent No. 1, Ram Parkash as Karta of joint Hindu family executed on February 7, 1978 an agreement to sell the suit property bearing M.C.K. No. 238/9, in Mohalla Qanungaon at Kaithal for a consideration of Rs. 21,400/- and he received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money. As the respondent No. 1 refused to execute the sale deed, the defendant No. 2, Jai Bhagwan instituted a suit No. 570 of 1978 in the court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Kaithal for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative for a decree for recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. In the said suit the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 11 who are the sons of defendant-respondent No. 1 made an application for being impleaded. This application, however, was dismissed. Thereafter the 3 sons of defendant No. 1 as plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 31 of 1982 in the court of Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Kaithal for permanent injunction stating inter alia that the said property was joint Hindu Family coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1; that there was no legal necessity for sale of the property nor it was an act of a good management to sell the s

















































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