Back
S. KANNAMMAL
V. Ayyappan – Appellant
Versus
G. R. Thiagasundara Mudaliar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012, passed in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur.
The appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.09.2012, passed in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvarur.
2. The defendant, who suffered a decree for specific performance before the trial Court, is the appellant herein.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as “defendant” and the respondent shall be referred to as “plaintiff”.
4. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :
The suit property is a landed property, c
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – There is distinction between limitation and delay and laches.
The court ruled that time is not an essence of contract in specific performance cases, and the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance despite the trial court's dismissal.
Point of law: . Delivery of the suit land pursuant to this agreement under Ex.A1 attracts Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and whereby the appellant is in its continuous possession and en....
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
