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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 2149

M.CHOCKALINGAM, R.SUBBIAH
Fathima Majeed – Appellant
Versus
Subhapratha Ravikumar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:T.V. Ramanujan, SC for M. Abdul Nazeer, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Anand, Advocate.

Judgment :

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.733 of 1995, whereby the Court granted the relief of specific performance as asked for by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The respondent, who sought the said relief, came with the specific allegations that the suit mentioned property belonged to the defendant; that the plaintiff desired to purchase the same; that there was an agreement entered into, as per which, the sale price was fixed at Rs.13,63,500/-; that advance of Rs.2 lakhs was paid on 04.01.1995; that the same was actually incorporated in the written agreement entered into between the parties on 06.01.1995; that the property of the defendant was originally mortgaged with Muthialpet Benefit Fund Limited and a sum of Rs.3,02,876.25 was due, which the plaintiff agreed to pay; that accordingly, by way of demand draft, that amount was paid and the mortgage was redeemed; that further, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid on 25.01.1995 towards balance sale consideration and thus, in total, a sum of Rs.7,08,876.25 has been paid by the plaintiff, but the defendant, who promised to get back the original document and satisfy his marketa












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