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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3510

V.DHANAPALAN
Mohideen Sahib – Appellant
Versus
A. Amena Bi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
R. Devaraj for S. M. Loganathan, for Appellant; K. Govindarajan, for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.

ORDER :- The unsuccessful plaintiff, who filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-7-1989 and lost his case in the first appellate Court as well, is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, entered into a sale agreement dated 1-7-1989 with him for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 3,240/- and the said consideration was also received by them, agreeing to execute the Sale Deed within a period of one year. On knowing that the defendants 1 to 3 tried to alienate the suit property, the plaintiff issued an advertisement on 7-8-1989 in 'Maalai Murasu' daily. Subsequently, having known that the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the suit property to the fourth defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 1-7-1989.

3. In their written statement, the defendants 1 to 3, first of all denied the agreement dated 1-7-1989. It was their case that the suit property did not belong to them on 1-7-1989 and it belonged to one Abdul Razak, the husband of the first defendant. According to them, they had approached the p































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