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

2005 Supreme(Kar) 208

HULUVADI G.RAMESH
K. NARAYANA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
RAMAKRISHNA REDDY – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Ananda Shetty, C.B.SRINIVASAN, S.D.N.PRASAD, V.TARKARAM

HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed under Sec. 96 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS 2400/1985 dated 4. 11. 1995. RFA 766/1995 is an appeal against the judgment and decree of specific performance passed against the appellant/defendant directing him to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in suit bearing No. 18/a measuring 85 ft. East-West, 24+25/2 ft and North-South situate at I phase, Gokul I Stage, Bangalore within three months from the date of the judgment, on payment of the balance consideration after deducting the advance amount paid. RFA 768/1995 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit seeking for specific performance against the defendant in respect of the adjacent marginal land to the suit property.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff s case in brief is that the plaintiff and defendant are co-brothers. On 17. 12. 1975, both the parties entered into an agreement in respect of the property as noted above, wherein the defendant had agreed to sell the said site along with the marginal land adjacent to it, at the rate of Rs. 135/- and Rs.














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