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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3950

S.NAGAMUTHU
Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Muthusamy – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:T. Murugamanicakm, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T.P. Manoharan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The defendants in O.S.No.24 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani are the appellants and the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent herein.

2. The said suit was filed for specific performance based on a registered Sale Agreement dated 31.08.1994 entered into between the defendants and the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. As against the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff in A.S.No.27 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. By decree and judgment dated 13.02.1998, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants are before this Court with this Second Appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff as could be culled out from the plaint is as follows: The defendants are the absolute owners of the suit property. On 31.08.1994, the defendants entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff by which the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.40,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid at the time of e

















































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