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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 675

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, RAMAN
Manjini – Appellant
Versus
Rajakumari – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Appellant. R.Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Respondent.

Judgment :

A. Raman, J.

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, who lost his case in the lower appellate court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 10. 1970 on the following allegations. The defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.31,000 and an agreement was executed between the parties on 10. 1979 and an advance of Rs.22,000 was paid on that date. The possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. As per the condition of the agreement, the defendant has to obtain permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The defendant has to produce the No Encumbrance Certificate as well. The sale was to be executed within two months from the date of permission. The defendant has produced the application for permission to sell and it was signed by the plaintiff. It was submitted to the authority. The defendant thereafter did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The defendant did not carry out the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs approach and attempt failed. The plaintiff has deposited Rs.9,000 in U.C.O Bank, Pondichery. The defendant is evading to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff u




































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