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

1986 Supreme(AP) 275

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.N.RAO
MOTHURAJU PUNIAH – Appellant
Versus
GORI KAPUDI ANANDAM – Respondent


JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to Bench by muktadar, J. The learned Judge felt that the interplay and mutual operation of Sub-Section (3) of Section 28 and Section 22 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, 1963, being a matter of frequent occurrence, should be pronouced upon by a Bench. It is necessary to state the relevant facts briefly.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale with respect to a land. According to him, out of a total consideration of Rs. 3,200/- he paid a sum of 2,000/ on the date of the agreement and was put in possession of land. The balance was payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The Plaintiff leased back the said land to the defendant on the same day. The defendant failed to execute a lease-deed as per the agreement, nor did he pay the rent due. Accordingly the plaintiff asked for the following relief. " (A) decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant to come forward and execute a regular sale-deed may be granted. or in the event of his failure to do so, a sale-deed through this Hon ble court may be ordered. . . . ".

( 3 ) THE p













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