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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2053

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Chinnasellan – Appellant
Versus
Santha – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P. Mani, Advocate
For the Respondent:V. Nicholas, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff, who got a decree before the trial Court, viz., District Munsif, Krishnagiri, by judgment and decree dated 12.07.2006 in O.S. No. 166 of 1995, which was set aside by the lower Appellate Court, viz., Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, in A.S. No. 82 of 2006 vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2008, has projected the instant Second Appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, who claims to be the original owner of the suit lands, on 10.9.1993, he executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant conveying the suit lands for a consideration of Rs.11,000/- on her promise that she would execute an agreement deed to reconvey the suit lands on payment of the amount within a period of three years. It is stated that the plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.10/- towards advance and the defendant agreed that on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,990/- on or before 10.9.1996, she shall execute the sale deed conveying the suit schedule land in his favour and accordingly, she executed a reconveyance agreement deed on 10.09.1993 itself. The main allegation of the plaintiff is that though he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,990/-
























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