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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 424

GOVARDHAN
Lakshmiammal – Appellant
Versus
S. Sengamalai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Subramaniam, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. Defendants are the appellants herein. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows:— The suit house belongs to the first defendant. The second defendant had transaction with the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was due from the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 47,000/- and executed an agreement for the same on 4.10.1980. Out of the sale consideration, the sum of Rs. 35,000/- which was already due from the second d efendant was agreed to be adjusted. A sum of Rs. 3,500/- was paid on the date of agreement as advance and a sum of Rs. 8,500/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the document. Time fixed for completion of the sale deed is by one year. The defendants have not executed the sale deed as agreed in spite of the notice issued by the plaintiff. But they have sent a reply containing false allegations. Hence the suit.

2. In the written statement it is stated as follows:— The second defendant owed a sum of Rs. 47,886/- to the plaintiff while acting as agent of the plaintiff. He repaid Rs. 17,000/- and there was a balance of Rs. 20,853.84 due from the second defendant







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