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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 102

VARADACHARIAR
Chinnakkal – Appellant
Versus
Chinnathambi Goundan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. The plaintiff brings this suit for specific performance of an agreement for re-sale (Ex. B) dated 4th May 1906. The property claimed in this suit was sold by the plaintiff for herself and as guardian of her minor son, by a sale-deed, Ex. 1 of the same date as Ex. B, to the present defendants. The registered sale-deed makes no reference to the agreement to re-convey but this has been provided for by a separate document, Ex. B. It would appear that the defendants have spent some moneys upon improving the property and one of the questions raised by them is that in the event of specific performance being decreed, they are entitled to the value of improvements which the first Court has fixed at Rs. 200.

2. The first Court gave the plaintiff a decree for specific performance. But the learned District Judge reversed that decision, holding that Ex. B is inoperative for want of registration, if viewed as part of the same transaction with Ex. 1-as in that case the transaction will in effect be converted into a mortgage by way of conditional sale - but that if it be viewed independently of Ex. 1 it would be void for want of consideration. I am unable to agree with t






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