V.G.ARUN
M. K. Raghavan, S/o. Kannan Komaram – Appellant
Versus
Seerakath Mariyam Beevi, D/o. Late N. P. Muhammed Haji – Respondent
ORDER :
Revision petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2010 on files of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Payyannur. suit was filed for a decree of specific performance directing respondent to execute sale deed in terms of agreement dated 22.8.2008. During pendency of suit, parties arrived at a settlement and lower court rendered judgment and decree in terms of settlement. As per terms of compromise decree, sale consideration was fixed at Rs.70 lakhs, out of which Rs.5 lakhs had already been paid to defendant. balance sale consideration was to be paid off by depositing Rs.25 lakhs in defendant's account on or before 30.1.2018 and Rs.40 lakhs, on or before 31.3.2018. Thereupon, sale deed was to be registered in plaintiff’s favour. It was also stipulated that on failure of plaintiff to deposit balance amount, defendant could adjust advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards loss sustained by him and plaintiff's right to get back amount will stand forfeited.
2. petitioner failed to pay amount of Rs.65 lakhs towards balance sale consideration within time. Instead, he caused a lawyer notice dated 28.4.2018 to be issued, requiring defendants to hand over original docum
Gupta Steel Industries v. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt.Ltd and another [(1996) 11 SCC 678]
Kappothoora Chandran and others v. N.Mustafa [(2011) 3 KLT 245]
Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and others v. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. [(2005) 9 SCC 262]
Smt.Periyakkal and Others v. Smt.Dhakshyani [AIR 1983 SC 428]
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.