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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 538

PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Indravanthi – Appellant
Versus
Kamala – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Sampathkumar, Associates, D. Dharamchand Jain, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The Judgment was delivered by :

This appeal has been filed against a decree for specific performance.

2. According to the plaint, there was an agreement dated 8-11-79 between the plaintiff and the defendant to sell the suit property at 28, Hanumantharoyal Kovil Street, Chennai-3 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The agreement is Ex. A. 1. As per clause 2 of the said agreement, Rs. 10,000/- was paid and received on the same date and the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 15-11-79 and Rs. 20,000/- on 15-12-1979 and the balance of Rs. 60,000/- at the time of registration. It was stipulated that time was essence of the contract and that the sale shall be completed within three months of the said date i.e. on or before 31-1-80. The plaintiff offered Rs. 10,000/- on 15-11-89 to the defendant's counsel but thereafter the defendant refused to receive any amount and Rs. 10,000/- was also returned by the defendant's counsel. On 13-12-79, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant offering to pay the amount. The defendant replied admitting the transaction but requesting for a copy of agreement for sale. On 23-1-80, the plaintiff sent the suit notice to which a























































































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