Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
D. Radhakrishnan (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
C.N. Munusamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. These two appeals are filed challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.173 of 2012 and O.S.No.162 of 2014.
2. O.S.No.173 of 2012 has been filed for relief of specific performance of agreement dated 27.12.1997 and O.S.No.162 of 2014 has been filed by the tenant who is said to be a tenant to the agreement holder for permanent injunction as against the defendant not to evict him except by due process of law. Both the appeals have been partly decreed. Hence, the present appeals.
3. The main issue to be decided in these appeals is with regard to the comprehensive suit for specific performance. The suit in O.S.No.162 of 2014 is depending on the decision of the O.S.No.173 of 2012 filed for enforcing the contract. Since both the appeals were tried and disposed vide a common judgment, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the appeals vide a common judgment. The parties are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of the suit in O.S.No.173 of 2012 are as follows:
a. It is the case of the plaintiff that the deceased 1st defendant Radhakrishnan is the allottee of the suit house by the Tamilnadu Housing Board
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the genuineness of the sale agreement, thus denying the relief of specific performance.
Point of Law : Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction – Agreement of Sale - non mentioning of the correct survey number in the agreement of sale cannot be held to be due to inadverten....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
Absence of the buyer's signature invalidates a sale agreement, requiring proof of the parties' intentions; the suit for specific performance is timely if filed within limitation after notice of refus....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party seeking specific performance to prove the execution of the sale agreement and demonstrate readiness and willingness ....
The plaintiff's failure to prove the execution of the sale agreement and her readiness and willingness for specific performance, along with the defendant's established possession and enjoyment of the....
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 ....
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
