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

1985 Supreme(Mad) 386

S.A.KADAR
Pauline Frederick – Appellant
Versus
V. L. Narayanan – Respondent


ORDER

S.A. Kadar, J.

1. These two revision petitions arise out of the same matter and the parties are the same. CRP.No. 4800 of 1984 arises out of the order of the 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 in E.P. No. 342 of 1983 and the petitioner in the execution application is the revision petitioner. C.R.P. No. 219 of 1985 arises out of the order of the said judge in E.P. 342 of 1983 and the second respondent therein, who is the petitioner in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 is the revision petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are these:- The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 5540 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras against the second respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the scheduled property, entered into between them on 30.10.1967. The suit was decreed on 24.1.1974. Pending suit, the second respondent herein, who is the defendant, has sold the suit property in favour of the revision petitioner by a deed of sale dated 11.5.1972. In E.P. No. 226 of 1979 the 1st respondent/decree-holder filed the execution against the 2nd respondent/defendant for the execution of the deed of sale. In E.A. No. 1523




















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