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

1994 Supreme(SC) 161

K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA
Ramankutty Guptan – Appellant
Versus
Avara – Respondent


Advocates:
G.VISHVANATHA IYER, K.R.NAMBIAR, M.P.VINOD

Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The appellant judgment-debtor filed a petition in the executing Court to rescind the contract dated January 16, 1976 on the plea that the respondent-plaintiff had committed default in depositing the balance consideration of Rs. 4,351 /- within one month from January 27, 1982 made by the appellate decree in A.S. No. 213 of 1979. The executing Court dismissed the application on the ground that the deposit was made within the time though the application on the execution side was maintainable. On revision, the High Court in C.R.P. No. 593 /90 dismissed the petition by judgment dated August 11, 1992 holding it not maintainable on the execution side.

3. The only question that arises for consideration is whether an application under S. 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for short the Act is maintainable on the execution side in a decree passed in the same suit by the appellate Court. The facts are not in dispute. Under the contract of sale the respondent was put in possession and on failure of the vendor to execute the sale deed the respondent filed the suit for specific performance. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, while granting
















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