Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
S. Krishnasami (Died) – Appellant
Versus
R. Marappan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in S.A.No.217 of 2012: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 23.08.2011 confirm the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.623/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal dt.29.07.2010.
S.A.No.218 of 2012: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.63 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dated 23.08.2011 confirm the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.651/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal dt.29.07.2010.)
Common Judgment
1. The issue involved in both the Second Appeals are common and hence they are heard together and disposed of through this Common Judgment.
2. The 1st defendant in the suit was the appellant in both the Second Appeals. On his demise during the pendency of the Second Appeal, his daughters have been substituted as the appellants in both the Second Appeals.
3. The 1st respondent in both the Second Appeals were the plaintiff in the suit. The husband is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 623 of 2003 which is the subje
The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the lower Appellate Court to fulfill the mandate under Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C., leading to the setting aside of the judgment and....
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the establishment of a substantial question of law, which was not present in this case.
A sale agreement remains enforceable if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness to perform and if the defendant fails to substantiate claims of fraud or lack of authority.
The court confirmed that appellate courts are restricted to substantial questions of law and cannot re-evaluate factual findings established in lower courts.
The appellate court confirmed the validity of a registered sale agreement and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's ruling on specific performance despite claims of tenancy.
Discretionary relief in specific performance cases must consider readiness, willingness, and circumstances of coercion, balancing hardship for both parties.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to demonstrate readiness and willingness for specific performance, as well as the application of Section 92 of the Evidence Act,....
The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for specific performance can be filed only against the persons who have entered into a sale agreement, and the necessity of parties in ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
