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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3750

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
P. Muthusamy – Appellant
Versus
K. Arumugam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N.Manokaran
For the Respondent: Mr. S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale or in the alternative for refund of the advance amount of Rs.57,000/- with accrued interest thereon and for creating a statutory charge over the suit properties under Section 55 (6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for proper payment of the said amount.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:

On 23.07.2003, the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit properties for a total sum of Rs.60,000/-. On the same day, a sum of Rs.57,000/- was paid towards advance. It was agreed between the parties that the sale should be completed on or before 17.09.2003. Though such time limit was fixed, both parties agreed that the time was not essence of the contract. When the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance amount, the first defendant was postponing the execution of the sale deed. On 06.01.2004, the plaintiff issued a registered notice expressing his readiness and willingness. It was received by th

























































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