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

1987 Supreme(Ker) 277

T.KOCHU THOMMEN
GOVINDAN – Appellant
Versus
ULAHANNAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant. The suit was dismissed by both the courts. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant and himself entered into Ext. Al agreement dated 29-8-1972 whereby the first defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a property having an extent of 87 cents for a total consideration of Rs. 2,700/. The document of sale was to be executed and registered on or before 1-9-1972. Since the first defendant did not comply with the terms of Ext. A1, Ext. A5 lawyer's notice was caused to be sent calling upon the first defendant to execute the document of sale. The first defendant's lawyer replied to Ext. A5 on 12-9-1972 (Ext. A4) stating that the first defendant would execute the document only if certain conditions which had been orally agreed upon between the parties were duly incorporated in the document of sale.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 15-6-1973 stating that on 1-9-1972 he went to the office of the Sub Registrar with the sale price of Rs. 2,700/- in cash and waited for the first defendant to arrive and execute the document. Since the defendant did not arrive till 4 O'Clock, he went to the Indian







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