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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 239

S.R.SINGHARAVELU
Arulraj & Others – Appellant
Versus
Jabesthial – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant :N.Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate. For The Respondents:Selvakumar, Thamaraiselvam, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This Second Appeal was directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.04.1994 of Sub Court, Dharmapuri in A.S.7 of 1993, by confirming the decree passed by the trial court (District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri) on 04.01.1993 in its O.S.722 of 1990.

2. During the course of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

(1) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff / respondent has complied with the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ?

(2) Whether the Courts below erred in law in granting a decree of specific performance for sale especially when serious allegation of frud has been made by the respondent with regard to the execution of Ex.A-1 dated 27.08.1987 ?

3. This is a suit for specific performance. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant, who himself is the brother of plaintiff's husband. There was an agreement between the parties on 27.08.1987 under Ex.A-1, agreeing to sell 25 cents of land in Survey No.122 and 33 cents of land in Survey No.120 with right to irrigate in the well thereon, for a sum of Rs.10,000/= and that there was payment of advance of Rs.7,000/- 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