Back
P. B. BALAJI
P. Ramachandra Raju – Appellant
Versus
M. Dhananjaya Raju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Balaji, J.
[COMMON PRAYER: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No.45 of 2012 & 32 of 2013 on the file of the 1st Additional District Court, Tiruvallur dated 04.07.2017 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirutani dated 04.11.2011 & O.S. No.43 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirutani dated 31.10.2012.]
The defendants 2 to 4, in a suit for specific performance, are the appellants in Second Appeal 875 of 2017. They are also the appellants in S.A. 876 of 2017, having been unsuccessful in their suit seeking a relief of permanent injunction.
2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. The common facts that are material for adjudication in the above Second Appeals are as hereunder:-
3.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 2010 sought for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.09.2006. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant offered to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,39,000/- and a sum of Rs.59,000/- was paid as advan
A sale agreement executed by one member of a joint family does not bind other members unless it is established that the executing member had the authority to act as Kartha, and specific performance c....
Point of law: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, where....
The court established that a manager of a Hindu joint family can validly enter into a sale agreement binding on minor members for legal necessity, and that continuous readiness and willingness to per....
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 ....
The court established that specific performance can be enforced despite the necessity for a partition of jointly held property shares.
Specific performance of an agreement is discretionary and unenforceable if not all necessary parties consent, and plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness to perform their obligations.
The High Court cannot re-assess evidence in second appeals, focusing only on substantial questions of law while confirming findings of lower courts.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude 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
