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

2024 Supreme(SC) 495

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Anand Kumar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Mr. Dhruv Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Kushagra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Harsh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The plaintiff must personally testify to readiness and willingness and cannot rely on an attorney-holder without personal knowledge. (!) (!) (!) - A Power of Attorney Holder can only depose for acts performed in pursuance of the power, not for acts requiring personal knowledge or for the principal’s acts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The suit is dismissed where the plaintiff delays beyond the extended time for registration and where there is long delay after breach, with consideration of conduct and discretionary relief. (!) (!) (!)

What is the standard for proving readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance?

What are the limitations on using a Power of Attorney Holder to depose for the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance?

What is the consequence of filing a suit for specific performance after a long delay or beyond the time extended for registration?


The appellant/plaintiff has called in question the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 01.09.2016 in First Appeal No. 340 of 2003 allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 12 to 14 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2003 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 38-A of 2000.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated, are that the appellant/plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with respondent no. 4 (acting as Power of Attorney holder of respondents/defendant nos. 2 to 11) for purchase of land admeasuring 145.60 acres bearing Khasra No. 214 to 233 (except Khasra No. 225) and Khasra Nos. 67/1 to 212 situated at village Khirsau, Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur, M.P for sale consideration at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per acre, totalling Rs.4,41,000/-. The appellant/plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.41,000/- on the date of agreement to sell and the balance amount was to be paid on the date of registration of the sale deed which was to be done within six months from the date of agreement.

2.1 On 22.05.1996, the appellant/plaintiff paid an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- for which an endorsement was made


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