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

2022 Supreme(SC) 314

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
P. Ramasubbamma – Appellant
Versus
V. Vijayalakshmi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Anuradha Mutatkar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Arpit Rai, Aviral Kashyap, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No. 100200/2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein – original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as defendant Nos. 3 and 4) and has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court granting decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.04.2005, the appellant herein - original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under :-

2.1 That the appellant herein – original plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.04.2005. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that she had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 herein original defendant No. 1 to purchase the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs. 29 lakhs. An advance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid under the said agreement. Defendant No. 1 had earlier executed a general power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 2 herein - orig


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