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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 648

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Vasantha and others – Appellant
Versus
M. Senguttuvan – Respondent


Advocates:
Sudha Ramalingam, for Appellants. R. Vijayan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

Second Appeal No.314 of 1986 arises from O.S.No. 1482 of 1981, a suit for specific performance filed by the appellants. Second Appeal No.2101 of 1986 arises from O.S.No.197 of 1981, filed by the defendant in O.S. 1482 of 1981. It was a suit for recovery of the property from the appellants. Both the suits were tried jointly, and evidence was taken in O.S.No.197 of 1981, i.e., the suit filed by the respondent in both the appeals. In this judgment, reference to parties will be according to their rank in O.S.No.1482 of 1981, which relates to Second Appeal No.314 of 1986, in which the plaintiffs in O.S. 1482 of 1981 are the appellants.

2. The plaint property admittedly belonged to the defendant, respondent herein. On 21. 1978, an agreement for sale was executed between the parties. The plaintiff M.S.Mani agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.3,180, and paid an advance of Rs.1,000. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff, agreed to take the sale deed within a period of six months from the date of the agreement on payment of the balance sale consideration at his expenses. The defendantSenguttuvan, in his turn, agreed that he wi



































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