SHINGHAL
Faujmal – Appellant
Versus
Nathulal – Respondent
2. Nathulal (defendant No. 1) mortgaged his two shops situated in village Jilola to the plaintiff and one other person on Baisakh Bad 7, Svt. 2001 for Rs. 110 and this fact is not disputed. The plaintiff claimed that Nathulal entered into a contract to sell one of [the shops to him for Rs. 300/- and executed agreement Ex. 1 to that effect on February 6, 1955. It was also the plaintiffs case that he was all along prepared to pay Rs. 300/- and have the sale deed executed in his favour but Nathu Lal avoided doing so and ultimately executed a sale-deed of the suit shop in favour of Ranglal ( defendant No. 2 ) on July 11, 1957. This is why the plaintiff instituted his suit on July 25, 1957, soon after the disputed sale, for specific performance of the contract in his favour.
3. Defendant Nathulal denied that he entered into a contract for the sale of the shop to the pl
(16) V. Ramachandra Ayyar vs. Ramalingam Chettiar (AIR 1963 SC 302)
(10) Gosthe Behari Sadhukhan vs. Omiyo Prosad Mullick (AIR 1960 Cal. 361)
(14) Peddi Reddi Togi Reddi vs. Panem Chinnabbi Reddi (AIR 1929 P.C. 13)
(20) Yellappa Ramappa Naik vs. Tippanna (AIR 1929 P.C. 8)
(21) Harmes vs. Hinkson (AIR 1946 P.C. 156)
(22) Durga Prasad vs. Ghanshiam Das (AIR 1948 P.C. 210)
(23) Kumbhan Lakshmanna vs. Tangirala Venkateswarlu (AIR 1949 P.C. 278)
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.