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

2007 Supreme(Pat) 968

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Binay Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar – Respondent


Judgment

1. Earlier, the petitioner was appearing in the matter in person but after understanding the complexity involved in the interpretation of the amendments brought in the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, he has again appeared through counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The revision application is directed against the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 by which the petition of the defendant petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

4. The aforesaid title suit had been filed by the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties for specific performance of contract seeking a direction upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties described in Schedule-1 of the plaint and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs based their case on an unregistered deed of Baybeyana (contract for sale) dated 19.11.2003. After appearing in the case, the defendant-petitioners filed an application on 27.2.2006 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint on the ground, inter alia, t
















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