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

1997 Supreme(Pat) 826

S.N.JHA
Phool Kumari Devi – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Deo Upadhya – Respondent


Judgment

S.N.Jha, J.

1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant is directed against the order allowing the plaintiffs petition for mandatory injunction and directing the defendant-appellant to demolish the disputed wall on the suit premises.

2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 16 of 1996 for specific performance of contract of sale and for setting aside the subsequent sale-deed dated 11.12.95 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit property. His case, so far as relevant, is that defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the property mentioned in Schedule Ka of the plaint to him for Rs. 70,000.00 out of which Rs. 55,000- was Paid as advance on 8.12.95. When the parties reached Buxar where the deed was to be executed, defendant No. 1 changed his stance and demanded a higher price. The Plaintiff sent lawyers notice asking the defendant to execute the sale-deed. He later learnt that on 11.12.95 the defendant No. 1 had executed sale-deed with respect to the property in question in favour of defendant No. 2. He got the facts verified from the Registration office and later filed the suit.










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