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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 647

A.RAMAN
Thirumeni – Appellant
Versus
Amirthalingam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Muthukumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Motilal Jain, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. The plaintiffs case is as follows:—

The suit property is in enjoyment of the defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs. 8 per culie and entered into an agreement of sale on 12.8.1981. The defendant also received a sum of Rs. 500. The total price of the suit property is Rs. 3,112/- at the rate of Rs. 8 per culie. According to the terms of the agreement the defendant shall receive the balance within a month and execute a sale deed. The plaintiff purchased the necessary stamp papers and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. As the defendant was delaying, the plaintiff issued a notice on 8.9.1981 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant refused to receive the notice. Then the plaintiff issued a telegram to the defendant calling upon the defendant to come to the Sub Registrars Office to execute the sale deed. But despite the same the defendant did not choose to come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence the suit.

2. The defendant contended as follows:—

The defendant never entered into an agreement of sale. The













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