Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE
Ashok S/o Bhaurao Patil – Appellant
Versus
Rajendrakumar Madanlal Kala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.
1. The present appellants, who are the original defendant Nos. 3,4 and 5 have challenged the order dated 18.01.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad (herein after referred to as "learned trial Court") below Exh. 292 in Special Civil Suit No. 160 of 2001. Under the impugned order, the learned trial Court, by partially allowing the aforesaid application below Exh. 292, has struck off the defence of the present appellants in the said suit as per Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :-
The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed Special Civil Suit No. 160 of 2001 against the present appellants as well as respondent No.3 for specific performance of contract in respect of agricultural lands bearing Gut Nos. 117 and 117/1, admeasuring 9 Acres 15 Gunthas situated at Nakshtrwadi, Aurangabad. According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs, the present respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, had failed to perform their contractual obligations towards them under the agreement for sale dated 06.12.1999 and therefore, the
Execution of an agreement to sell does not constitute a breach of court undertaking prohibiting sale unless actual transfer of property occurred.
An agreement to sell does not create an interest in property and does not breach an undertaking unless actual sale or transfer occurs.
Court emphasized that once agreements are executed and earnest money paid, specific performance can be enforced unless clear evidence of coercion or duress is presented.
The court held that specific performance of an agreement for sale is unenforceable without consent from co-parceners and proof of legal necessity, emphasizing the court's discretion in granting such ....
(1) Agreement to Sell – Only a valid and enforceable contract can be ordered to be specifically performed.(2) Agreement to Sell – Court is not bound to order specific performance even if it is lawful....
The court emphasized that the rejection of a plaint cannot be done in a piecemeal manner and must be rejected as a whole. The subsequent events of abatement/dismissal of the suit in Saket Court were ....
The plaintiff's lawful ownership and entitlement to recovery of possession were established, and the defendants' possession was found to be unlawful.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
