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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 379

VARADACHARIAR
Bkottiprolu Seetharamamma – Appellant
Versus
Ramireddi Patta Reddi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. These appeals arise out of cross suits and as they relate to the same transaction, they may be conveniently dealt with together. A.S. No. 64 arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the vendor. A.S. No. 65 arises out of a suit instituted by the intending purchasers for getting refund of the advance paid by them in pursuance of the contract of sale. It will be convenient to refer to the parties by their position in A.S. No. 64. It is common ground that on 20th August 1929, the parties entered into the agreement, Ex. A for the sale and purchase of about 1,31 acres of land for Rs. 10,100 and that the defendants paid Rs. 1000 in cash as advance. The document provided that the sale should be completed before the end of June 1930. For reasons which it is unnecessary to go into now, the transaction was not so completed and there was a revised contract between the parties on 25th July 1930 (Ex. B). The price was reduced by Rs. 1000 and the time for completion was extended to 25th August 1930. Even this contract was not carried out in due course and after protracted correspondence, in the course of which each party blamed the other, the vendor













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