Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Anilkumar (Died) S/o. Keasava Panicker – Appellant
Versus
Sobhanakumari D/o. Ammukuttiamma – Respondent
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.S.A. No.175 of 2012 has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.139/2010 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment in the above case dated 22.12.2011. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above suit.
2. R.F.A. No.258 of 2012 also has been filed challenging the decree and judgment in the same case, at the instance of plaintiff, arraying the defendant as the respondent.
3. Heard both sides, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.
4. Parties in these appeals shall be referred as “plaintiff†and “defendant†with reference to their status before the trial court.
5. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant, who is none other than her brother, executed a sale agreement on 05.02.2009 and agreed to sell the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 1 acre 10 cent, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent. The further case of the plaintiff is that, on the date of execution of the agreement itself, the entire sale consideration to
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove the execution of the agreement and readiness to perform the contract, including financial capability.
The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance starts from the date of refusal of performance, not from the execution date of the agreement.
The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement, and the amendment to include a claim for the return of the advance amount was not permissible as it would change the nature of the s....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in granting specific performance of a sale agreement, emphasizing the necessity of proving execution and the bona fide intention of the plaintiff.
Agreement to sell – Suit seeking relief of specific performance cannot be allowed where Plaintiff fails to prove that agreement was intended to sell the property and was not executed as a security fo....
The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.
Point of law: Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale Specific Performance - If any transfer subsequent to sale agreement is not for consideration and not done in good faith, then, there is no neces....
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
