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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 181

S.PALANIVELU
Kaliammal & Others – Appellant
Versus
P. Marimuthu & Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S. Kaithamalai Kumaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, M. Manokaran, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The petitioners are defendants in OS.No. 325 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode. The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants on the strength of the sale agreement admittedly executed by these petitioners on 112. 2006. In the written statement filed by these petitioners originally, they have unambiguously admitted the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the first plaintiff and also the receipt of advance amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, but denied the allegations that time is not essence of contract. In para 8 of the written statement, they have also pleaded that the stipulated period of three months lapsed on 13. 2007 as per the terms of the agreement, before that, the defendants approached the plaintiffs and conveyed their readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed on 13. 2007 and all the defendants were waiting at Sub Registrar Office, Uthukuli from morning 10.00 a.m. to evening 5.00 p.m. But the plaintiffs have not turned up to the Sub Registrars office.

.2. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No. 1017 of 2008 in the suit praying the Court to receive the additional statement filed by the








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