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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1934

A. A. NAKKIRAN
P. K. Rajendiran – Appellant
Versus
P. A. Vinayagam – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Y. Jyothish Chander, Advocate. For the Respondent:Chitra Sampath, SC, R. Bharathkumar Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgement and decree, dated 18.04.2016, made in OS.No.121 of 2011, by the Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed, against the judgement and decree, dated 18.04.2016, made in OS.No.121 of 2011, by the Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.

2. The suit was filed for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 19.11.2010, failing which, for a direction for execution of the sale deed through the Court and for permanent injunction and for costs.

3. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is that the Defendant is the owner of the suit property. One Nithianandam, who was working in the Plaintiff Company, had introduced the Defendant. The Defendant had entered into a sale agreement, dated 19.11.2009, with the Plaintiff, to sell the schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.19,05,000/- and the Defendant had received an advance amount of Rs.19,00.000/- and it was agreed that at any time, on payment of the balance sale consideration, the sale should be completed. The Defendant had requested one week time to vacate the sui

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