Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
Puranmal Alias Purnashanker – Appellant
Versus
Lrs of Smt. Pushpa Devi – Respondent
ORDER :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the same date i.e. 22.02.2024, four suits arising out of the identical facts were decided by the learned Trial Court. He submits that in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.306/2024 filed against the other identical suit being Civil Original Suit No.05/2017, an interim order has been passed by this Court on 13.01.2025.
2. In S.B. Civil First Appeal No.306/2024, on 13.01.2025, the Court observed and passed the following order:
“1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court erroneously proceeded on to decree the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of consideration amount whereas the defendant had specifically admitted for specific performance of the contract i.e. to get the sale-deed registered in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Learned counsel further submits that even if the conclusion as drawn by the learned Trial Court of the defendant having 1/7th share in the property is considered, he had agreed to sell out 1/12th share in the complete property which clearly was less than his share.
3. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise the suit in question was not maintainable as no relief f
A suit for refund of consideration is not maintainable without a specific performance prayer, as per procedural requirements.
The court clarified that specific performance can be sought on agreements executed by a subset of coparceners, distinguishing it from prior cases based on the specific context of the agreement.
The court emphasized the necessity of protecting property during litigation to prevent irreparable harm, allowing a temporary injunction against alienation.
The court upheld the necessity of maintaining the status quo by staying the trial court's order for cancellation of a sale deed pending the appeal.
Point of Law : Provisions of section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in light of the provisions of Order XX Rule, 12A of the CPC, and it was held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12A mand....
The court clarified that under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, discretion to deny specific performance must be based on clear evidence of hardship, which was not presented by the defendants.
Stay of proceeding in Execution Case – Appeal is considered to be continuation of suit and subject matter of dispute must be kept safe till attaining finality ofissue by way of judgment.
The court considered the existence of a prima facie case, the absence of irreparable loss to the respondent, and the balance of convenience in determining the outcome of the appeal.
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
