Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MITALI THAKURIA
Mrigen Das @ Malakar, S/o. Late Basanta Das – Appellant
Versus
Kumud Chandra Das, S/o. Late Uttam Chandra Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional introduction and context (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. substantial questions of law formulated (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments relating to signature proof and document validity (Para 4) |
| 4. duty of plaintiff regarding readiness and willingness (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. evidence of readiness and willingness by plaintiff (Para 8 , 15) |
| 6. denial of signature and procedural aspects (Para 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 7. saleable right and no objection certificate (Para 14 , 18) |
| 8. discretion of court in specific performance (Para 16) |
| 9. decision on substantial question of law (Para 20) |
| 10. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
1.Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Barooah, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 09.09.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 68/2008, whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 303/2004, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent 6 was upheld.
3. This Court, after hearing t
The absence of signature proof does not invalidate a specific performance decree if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under the Specific Relief ....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
A sale agreement signed solely by the vendor is enforceable, and no fixed date of performance in an agreement allows suit filing within three years of notice of refusal.
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was established in this case.
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
