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

1987 Supreme(Raj) 182

D.L.MEHTA
Shamsher – Appellant
Versus
Rustam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.C. Rastogi, & J.P. Goyal, for Appellant; Jagdeep Dhankar, for Respondents

D.L. MEHTA, J.—The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit For specific performance on the basis of sale deed dated 12th July, 1985 and prayed that the sale-deed may be got registered and the defendants may be directed to get it verified. In the sale-deed, there is a reference that the possession of the disputed land has been delivered to the purchaser.

2. The purchaser plaintiff-appellant move an application under O. 39 R. 1 and C.P.C. that an injunction may be issued prohibiting the defendant-respondents not to interfere with their lawful possession. The learned court below considering the provisions of Section 37 and the decision of the Madras High Court in a case of Krishnamoorty Koundar Vs. Paramasive Koundar (1) held that temporary injunction cannot be granted to enable the vendee to protect his possession. The Madras High Court was of the view that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale by the prospective vendee, such vendee can not be grande temporary injunction to enable him to protect his possession only on the basis of the terms of the agreement that he was given possession of the property on the date of agreement of sale unless the truth of delivery of




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