Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Gunjalal Das S/o Late Kunjalal Das – Appellant
Versus
Prafulla Kr. Nath S/o Late Ram Mohan Nath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, in Title Appeal No. 18/2012.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree 07.09.2015, the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2012, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 22/2006,
4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants submits that while admitting this appeal for hearing, vide order dated 22.02.2016, no substantial question of law was framed and in the order dated 22.02.2016, only the grounds have been mentioned and as such, there is a requirement of framing the substantial question of law here in this appeal. Mr. Mukherjee referring to page No. 3 of the memo of appeal, submits that there he has suggested three substantial questions of law and the same are read as under:
1. Whether the decree for specific performance of contract could have been passed in respect of a joint and unpartitioned plot of land on
A decree for specific performance cannot be granted for joint property without the consent of all joint owners, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the appellate court.
The grant of specific performance is discretionary, considering undue hardship to subsequent bona fide purchasers, outweighing the plaintiff's claim based on a disputed agreement.
The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior co....
The plaintiff must prove the execution of the contract and her readiness to perform to be entitled to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, and the mere registration of a document does ....
Concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court are binding unless demonstrated to be perverse; appeals under Section 100 cannot disturb established facts without substantial questio....
Specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers if they had knowledge of the original contract.
The second appeal requires substantial questions of law that affect party rights; concurrent factual findings from lower courts are binding unless proved perverse.
A co-owner may execute a sale agreement for their share in a joint property, but cannot bind other co-owners not part of the agreement, making it enforceable only to the extent of the signing co-owne....
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
