Back
S. S. SUNDAR, P. B. BALAJI
P. M. Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
D. Chitra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against the judgment and decree made in OS.No.78/2011 dated 13.08.2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tirupur, Tirupur District.)
S.S. Sundar, J.
(1) The appellant in the above appeal is the plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.78/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirupur.
(2) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows.
(3) The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.78/2011 for specific performance of a Sale Agreement dated 29.07.2010 and for consequential reliefs.
(4) It is the case of the appellant that the suit property comprising of land and buildings belongs to the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 lakhs. It is the further case of the appellant that the agreement was reduced to writing and as per the Agreement dated 29.07.2010, the 1st defendant received an advance of Rs.18 lakhs and that the parties mutually agreed that the balance of sale consideration shall be paid by the plaintiff on or before 28.03.2011 and that the 1st defendant, upon receipt of
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a genuine and valid agreement for specific performance, and the burden of proof on the parties to establish the authenticity ....
PONT OF LAW: readiness and willingness in completing her part of the sale transaction at the earliest point of time, all would only go to disclose that as the sale agreement had not been really execu....
The court ruled that without valid proof of the agreement's execution and payment, the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance, emphasizing the importance of unimpeachable evidence in such....
Point of law: Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale Specific Performance - If any transfer subsequent to sale agreement is not for consideration and not done in good faith, then, there is no neces....
The burden of proof shifts to the party admitting the signature in a sale agreement to disprove its genuineness, and inconsistency in defense and lack of clean hands can lead to the dismissal of an a....
The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.
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
