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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 356

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
Meenakshinada Deikshtar – Appellant
Versus
Murugesa Nadar – Respondent


Advocates:
K. N. Balsubramanian and Srinivasan, for Petitioner; V. Ratnam, for Respondents.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. Under Exhibit A-2 dated 27th April, 1963, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land belonging to the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant who was the accredited power-of-attorney holder of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 225 as advance towards the total price of Rs.1,537, which advance, in terms of the agreement, was liable to be forfeited in case the sale was not completed within the prescribed time and due to the plaintiff's default. The term of the contract ran as under:

"If you (the plaintiff) fail to complete the sale within the aforesaid time, you (the plaintiff) shall lose the said advance. If I (the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant) fail to get the said sale deed registered within the aforesaid time, I (the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant) will give you (the plaintiff) two times above the said advance."

In short, for a breach of the contract on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendants, one has to pay to the other a sum of Rs.225/- as damages and the defendants had the additional privilege for forfeiting the sum of Rs. 225/- if the plaintiff commits a breach of contra
























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