Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ
N. Rajamony S/o. Nallathampi – Appellant
Versus
Saradamma, W/o. Ramakrishna Panicker – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for specific performance, with an alternate prayer for return of advance sale consideration, was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.
2. Ext.A1 agreement dated 31.05.2010 was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 for the sale of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The total sale consideration fixed was Rs.135 lakhs. An amount of Rs.40 lakhs was paid on the date of Ext.A1, towards advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance was four months. The plaint schedule property belonged jointly to defendants 1 to 4; the first defendant is the mother, and she is entitled to 70%, and defendants 2 to 4, who are her sons, are entitled to 10% shares each. The 4th defendant was not a party to Ext.A1 agreement. It was the term of the agreement that defendants 1 to 3 would cause a partition deed to be executed along with the 4th defendant, whereunder, the plaint schedule property would be got allotted exclusively to defendants 1 to 3. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 failed to honour the agreement. Though defendants 1 to 4 entered into a partition deed, in contravention of the terms o
Withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit negates the bar under Order II Rule 2, allowing claims for specific performance on the same cause of action.
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
Subsequent suit barred under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC if on same cause of action as withdrawn prior suit, omitting reliefs without leave; plaint rejectable under Order VII Rule 11 if averments disclose....
![C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2716](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
The court held that specific performance is a discretionary relief and denied it due to the plaintiff's delay and lack of demonstrated readiness to perform the contract, resulting in inequity to the ....
Subsequent suits based on the same cause of action are barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, thus limiting the relief for specific performance in favor of return of advance.
The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply when a second suit is based on a distinct cause of action arising from subsequent events, such as the lifting of a government ban on property registra....
A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit; failure to do so bars subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
![C. Mani [Died] VS K. Sampath - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1045](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_3.png)
An order remanding a proceeding may ordinarily be made under Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the Trial Court has decided the case on a preliminary point and the Appellate Court ....
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
