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

1989 Supreme(Del) 290

C.L.CHAUDHRY, B.N.KIRPAL
ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DIPAK KHOSLA, MUKUL ROHTAGI, P.C.SHARMA

B. N. Kirpal, J.

( 1 ) ADMITTED. Since the appeal involves a short question, we propose to dispose of the appeal immediately.

( 2 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of the learned single Judge of this Court, who bad directed the proposed sale consideration be deposited in Court before any further orders are passed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11th January, 1988. It was averred that the defendants along with one Laxmi Narain had agreed to sell some land in Village Biswan. New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000 per acre. It is further alleged that prior to the execution of the agreement to sell, Laxmi Narain had in fact died on 18th July, 1969, and this fact was not known to the plaintiff/ appellant. In view of this, the prayer in the suit was for the relief of grant of a decree for specific performance in respect of the 2/3 share of the two defendants in the land in question.

( 4 ) WHEN the suit came up for hearing on the first day the learned single Judge, in the impugned order, held that the suit is for part performance of the agreement to sell and such a suit will be maintainable only after the party su








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