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

2001 Supreme(AP) 846

GODA RAGHURAM
Pagadala Pedda Yadalah – Appellant
Versus
K. Annapurnamma – Respondent


GODA RAGHURAM, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common issues are involved and! between same parties these revisions are considered together and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 herein are the! plaintiffs in O. S. 23/95 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgond district. The suit has been filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10-10-1995. Respondents 3 and 4 herein and the revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was decreed on 6-3-1998 ex parte. The decree to the extent relevant and material for the purpose of these revisions, reads as under:"2. That the defendants do hereby directed to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 in respect of the suit schedule property on receipt of balance sale consideration and also deliver the physical and vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff no. 1, within three months. "

( 4 ) IN terms of the decree above, the plaintiffs are required to pay the balance sale consideration within a period that would enable and obligate the defendants to execute a regular sale deed and deliver vacant physical possession of the suit schedule propert
















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