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

1972 Supreme(J&K) 4

S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JANKI NATH BHAT, JASWANT SINGH
Shiv Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ajudhia Nath – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: I.K. Kotwal
Advocate For Respondent: D.D. Thakur

1. The question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether or not the possession of a proposed vendee under an agreement to sell becomes adverse from the date of the execution of the agreement in the event of a sale deed not being executed and the remedy of specific performance becoming time-barred. The question posed above is undoubtedly a sub­stantial question of law and is indeed a vexed one and there does not appear to be any authority directly in point which has discussed all the aspects at issue. The facts giving rise to this revision may be summarised as follows.

2. The plaintiffs father, Ganga Bishno, is said to have exe­cuted a contract for sale in favour of Mst. Narain Devi wife of the defendant on 26th Har, 2009 (Bikrami) == 17-7-1952. The agreement was in respect of 7 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 1716 min situate in Najrar, district Bhadarwah, whose possession was delivered to the prospective vendee under the agreement. It was stipulated in the agreement that Ganga Bishno would execute a proper sale deed in favour of Mst. Narain Devi within three years of the execution of the agree­ment failing which it will be open to the proposed vendees to






















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