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

2009 Supreme(Del) 1237

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Sobhag Narain Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Pragya Agrawal – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Through:Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Advocate
Through:Mr. Deshraj, Advocate & Mr. D.K.Kaushik, Advocate

ORDER

1. By this application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the applicant/defendant has sought rejection of the suit on the ground that no cause of action had been disclosed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the alleged contract. The contract relied upon by the plaintiff was merely a contract for entering into a further agreement and the Court could not compel the parties to enter into an agreement to sell.

2. Before dealing with further averments made by the applicant, it would be fruitful to reproduce the contract which is the basis of this suit. The contract as disclosed by on ‘bayana’ receipt executed by the defendant, reads as under:

BAYANA RECEIPT

I, Pragya Aggrawal w/o Manoj Agrawal, residing at 58A/4 Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062. I have agreed to sell my plots no. A, B, C, D Local Shopping Center, Madangir, area is 82.5 meters per plot, altogether 330 meter, approximately 44 guz, to S.N.Mathur, s/o Late Sh. Swarup Narainji Mathur r/o 152/10 Swarup Narain Mathur Marg Civil Lines Ajmer for a total consideration of Rs.6,20,00,000/- (Six Crore twenty lac). I hereby acknowledge the acceptance of Rs.20 lac in cash as bayana. The remaining

payment of Rs.6 crore shall be p













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