T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Y. Venkata Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
V. Naga Mani Agripalli, V. M. Krishna District – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.) :
1. Since both the appeals arise from the common judgment, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.
2. A.S.No.79 of 2009 is filed, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) by the Appellant/2nd Defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 13.03.2008 in O.S.No.07 of 2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid (for short, ‘trial court’).The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.07 of 2002, for specific performance of contract directing the Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the schedule property after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- from the Plaintiff and to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the Plaintiff.
3. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.46 of 1998 for partition of plaint schedule property into 16 equal shares and allot 10 such shares to the Plaintiff by meets and bunds as per good and bad qualities and allotment of such share to the Plaintiff and for separate possession of the same.
4. A petition has been filed under Section 24 of t
A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed
C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy
D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam
Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao
Makhan Singh (Died) by LRs. v. Kulwant Singh
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa @ Mallesappa
Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh V. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh
P. Daivasigamani Vs. S.Sambandan
P.R. Kannaiyan (died) v. Ramasamy Mandiri
The court upheld specific performance of a contract where the plaintiff demonstrated continuous readiness to fulfill obligations; joint family property claims were insufficient without evidence of le....
A contract for the sale of property can only be enforced to the extent of a party's ownership rights, particularly where ancestral claims exist and co-ownership affects transactional authority.
Specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff shows readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, despite defendants' claims of irregularity in executing the agreement.
The court affirmed that ancestral property cannot be sold without consent from all coparceners, rendering the sale agreement unenforceable.
The court established that a written agreement of sale is conclusive evidence of the parties' intentions, and the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their co....
Substantial compliance with a sale agreement, including significant payment, can justify specific performance even in the face of claims of joint ownership.
Point of law: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, where....
Specific performance of an agreement is discretionary and unenforceable if not all necessary parties consent, and plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness to perform their obligations.
The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior co....
The Karta of a Hindu joint family can alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, and such alienation is binding on minor coparceners if proven necessary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.