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

1918 Supreme(Mad) 270

J.WALLIS
P. Bhashyakarlu Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Nungambakkam Andalammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

John Wallis, C.J.

1. This is an application to revise a decision of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, which came before me yesterday and was referred to a Bench. It raises the question whether the plaint discloses a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land. If it does, then admittedly the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction. Ordinarily of course, a suit will not lie for specific performance of a contract to pay money. But the case of the vendor, as pointed out in Frys Specific Performance, page 33, is an exception to that rule, and the Court will grant the vendor specific performance of his contract against the purchaser; and the form of the decree in such a case will be found in Morgan v. Briscoe (1886) 31 Ch. D. 216 and is set out in Setons Judgments and Orders, Volume III pages 2174 and 2175. The form is that the plaintiff is to be at liberty to prepare and execute a conveyance to the defendant as an escrow to be delivered to the defendant on payment of the purchase money within the time limited, and that the defendant is to pay the purchase money after the conveyance is ready. It was stated that there was a difficulty about this i




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