ANTONY DOMINIC, A.HARIPRASAD
ALIYAR – Appellant
Versus
RAJU V. VAYALAT – Respondent
Hariprasad, J.
This is an appeal by the defeated defendant.
2. Apart from the factual issues, the prime legal question arising for determination in this appeal is whether an assignment deed can be rectified under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, "the Act") without pleading and proving fraud or mutual mistake of the parties? Ancillary question is whether a decree declaring that the property shown in the plaint schedule is the property assigned to the plaintiff through Ext.A1 (the document sought to be rectified) will salvage the situation in favour of the plaintiff? Of course, other reliefs sought in the plaint are dependent on the findings on these issues.
3. Short facts pleaded in the plaint are thus: Respondent is the absolute owner of 22 cents of land in resurvey Nos.63/2 and 196 of Chelamattom Village and a double storied building bearing No.PMC/XXI/339. He purchased the property from the appellant as per Ext.A1 sale deed. The dispute in this case is centered around this property and the building. Respondent contended that he purchased the property from the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 52 lakhs, by availing a loan from the State Bank of T
State of Karnataka v. K.K.Mohandas AIR 2007 SC 2917
Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar AIR 2013 SC 2028
Ibrahim Koyakutty v. Varghese Varghese 1951 KLT 117
Chacko Joseph v. Varghese Markose 1957 KLT 485
Savarimuthu Nadar Chellayan Nadar Vs. Kanakku Kali Pillai Padmanabha Pillai 1957 KLT 825
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.