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

1985 Supreme(Ker) 121

BALAKRISHNA MENON, SUKUMARAN
MANI. J MEENATTOOR – Appellant
Versus
MRS. AMY HOMI COI. ABWALLA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. To decide the two questions raised by the Ist defendant-appellant, it is unnecessary to state the facts of the case in detail. The bare facts necessary for the appeal are as follows:

2. The 2nd defendant entered into an agreement with the deceased Ist plaintiff for the purchase of 1103.86 acres of private forest in South Wynad Taluk known as the Valiya Para Estate, The agreement provided for the sale of the land to the 2nd defendant or his nominees. The Ist defendant as per Ext. Al sale deed dated 6-7-1968 purchased 490.98 acres of land from the plaintiff as advised by the 2nd defendant for a price fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- towards which a sum of Rs 38,000/- was paid on the date of sale and the balance Rs. 62,000- was to be paid within six months thereafter. The Ist defendant was put in possession of the land on the date of Ext. Al itself. The period of six months fixed in Ext. Al for payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 62,000/-expired on 6-1-1969. The plaintiff issued Ext. A2 notice dated 6-3-1969 to the Ist defendant demanding payment of the balance consideration and requiring the Ist defendant to desist from cutting and removing trees in the land sold before





























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