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

1994 Supreme(SC) 1196

K.RAMASWAMY, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
Jugraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
Labh Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
BHARTI SHARMA, RAJINDER SACHAR, RANI CHHABRA

ORDER

The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant Jasbir Singh had executed an agreement of sale dt.30-8-1984 in favour of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4-1-1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir Singh, the first defendant. All the Courts have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement dt. 30-8-84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.

2. It is contended for the petitioners that the trial Court having found the petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the petitioners that Labha Singh plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.

3. Secion 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agree







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