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

1997 Supreme(Kar) 139

CHIDANANDA ULLAL
Y. R. MAHADEV – Appellant
Versus
K. DAYALAN – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Lingappa, M.R.ACHARYA, RAVI VERMA, SHADAKSHARAIAH, SURYANARAYANA SWAMY

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THE instant appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree, dated 7-4-1994 in o. s. No. 4443 of 1990 on the file of the vi additional city civil judge, Bangalore, whereby the said judge had dismissed the suit of the appellant.

( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri m. r. achar and the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri g. Lingappa. I have also perused the records.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief leading to the above appeal are as follows: that the appellant had filed suit in o. s. No. 4443 of 1990 on 30-7-1990 for a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 9-6-1988 executed by the respondent for sale of site bearing No. 67, formed by the Bangalore development authority in a layout called further extension of mahalakshmi layout, Bangalore, measuring 12. 20 metres into15. 50 + 14. 65 / 3 metres, that the sale consideration of Rs. 85,000/- and cash payment of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent on the same day as advance amount, that the said site was allotted by the Bangalore development authority to the respondent under a letter of allotment, dated 5-5-1984 marked as ex. D-3 and the possession wa




























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