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

1988 Supreme(Raj) 511

FAROOQ HASAN
Raj Kumar Tejendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sital Raj Mehta – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. - Unfortunately, there are not infrequent instances where what should have been clear and certain by applying well established canons of statutory construction becomes befogged by the vegaries, if one may use a possibly strong word without disrespect, of justicial exposition divorced from these canons. The present appeal before me is such an instance by such a fog created by the defendants in the first appeal which arises out of a civil suit which has been decreed by the learned Addl District Judge No. 2. Jaipur City, Jaipur, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent with costs for specific performance of contract for sale of land measuring 3182 sq. yds. situated at Govind Marg, Jaipur and shown by yellow colour in the site plan (Ex. 1) annexed to the plaint.Factual matrix -

2. Dr. S.R. Mahta, the plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit for specific performance. The defendants appellants, Tejendra Singh, Digvijai Singh and Jaivendra Singh, had entered into a verbal contract on July 27, 1968, through Mahadevlal Jethani (PW-5), a property broker, with the plaintiff-respondent, agreeing to sell him their plot of land of joint ownership admeasuring 3,182 sq. vds as shown with yellow









































































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