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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 916

G.RAJASURIA
Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
S. V. Natarajan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:R.T. Doraisamy, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S.No.5 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam in O.S.No.101 of 2008.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Niggard and bereft of details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

a. The appellants herein, being the plaintiffs, filed the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell with alternative prayer for refund of the advance amount paid in respect of the suit immovable property. There emerged an agreement to sell between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The total sale consideration agreed was Rs.36,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.10,000/-was paid as advance by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Three months' time for performance was stipulated therein. However, within the said three months' time not


















































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