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

1953 Supreme(Mad) 259

GOVINDA MENON, BASHEER AHMED SAYEED
Kakarla Venkatasubbayya – Appellant
Versus
Sravanam Venkatarathnamma – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Sithikanta Sastri for Appellants.
B.V. Ramanarasu for Respondent.

Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.-

This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by our learned brother Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., confirming the lower appellate Court’s order directing appellants defendants 1 and 2 to execute a fresh sale deed and get it registered and modifying the lower appellate Court’s decree so far as costs were concerned.

The facts involved in this Letters Patent Appeal have been elaborately set out by our learned brother in his judgment dated the 12th December, 1949. We do not think it is necessary for us to restate them over again in this judgment.

Two main legal contentions have been raised in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention is that the suit is not maintainable, as section 77 of the Registration Act has not been complied with and that, unless the remedy provided under section 77 of the Registration Act is sought by setting the machinery provided therefor in motion, a suit for specific performance cannot lie. The second contention is that, in second appeal, it was not open to the learned Judge to upset a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the trial as well as the appellate Courts in regard to the ge
























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