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

2006 Supreme(SC) 638

S.H.KAPADIA, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Vijaya Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
Mirahul Enterprises – Respondent


ORDER

Two suits bearing No. 450/86 and 451/86 were filed in the Delhi High Court for specific performance of the agreement dated 2.11.1983 in which it was alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (developers) had agreed to sell to the plaintiffs two flats in Mirahul Apartments, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The above two suits claimed from the developers execution of the sale deed and refund of the alleged loan amount extended by the vendees to the developers. The defendant-developers submitted that there was no conclusive agreement between the parties and that the agreement dated 2.11.1983 was a provisional agreement which the plaintiff required to avail of the loan from HDFC Bank. During the pendency of the suits, the defendant-developers conveyed a portion of the suit flat to the 6th defendant, viz., S.S. Mohd. Arshad, a resident of Madras. Therefore, the plaintiffs (appellants herein) amended the plaint and alleged that the conveyance in favour of Mohd. Arshad dated 9.6.1987 was a sham transaction and that the vendees were not bound by such transaction.

2. In the said suits, the learned single judge framed the following issues:

"Suit No. 451/86:

1.Whether the plaint has been sign
































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