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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 533

K.A.SWAMI, KANAKARAJ
T. Periasamy Nadar and Others – Appellant
Versus
T. D. Ramasubramaniam – Respondent


Advocates:
N.S. Varadachari, for Appellants. V.S.Subramaniam, assisted for V.Ramesh, for Respondent.

Judgment :-

K.A.Swami, C.J.

These 4 L.P.Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 14. 1991 passed in A.S. Nos.427 to 430 of 1981 respectively. Those 4 appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos.3811 to 3814 of 1978. All these suits were filed for specific performance of the agreements dated 8. 1977. O.S. No.3811 of 1978 was filed by T.Periasamy Nadar, T.Murugesan and T.Thangaraj, whereas O.S. No.3812 of 1978 was filed by T.Murugesan, O.S. No.3813 of 1978 was filed by T.Thangaraj and O.S. No.3814 of 1978 was filed by Periasamy. All the three are brothers and they have purchased different bits comprised in the property bearing door Number 15/8, situate at Sir Thiagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Madras. All these suits were filed on 14. 1978. The trial court dismissed the suits. So also the learned single Judge. Hence, these L.P.As. Thus, the two courts below have refused to grant a decree for specific performance.

2. In the light of the contentions urged, the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: (i) whether the court below is justified in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance and (ii) whether any other relief
















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