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

1964 Supreme(Ori) 2

G.K.MISRA
HAREKRUSHNA SAHOO – Appellant
Versus
KSHETRA BARA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.C.Ray, H.KANUNGO, R.N.MOHANTY, SOVESH CHANDRA ROY

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. He sold the disputed land to the defendant on 14-81956 for Rs. 300/- by a registered sale deed Ex. A. On the very day, the defendant executed a unregistered agreement for sale (Ex. 1) stipulating to reconvey the same property to the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 300/- within three years from that date. During the stipulated period, the plaintiff offered the money personally to the defendant and also remitted the money by money-order, but the defendant refused to accept the money. The suit is for specific performance of the agreement Ex. 1.

( 2 ) THE defendant alleged that Ex. 1 was not genuine. His case is that at the time of the sale there was paddy crop on the suit land. As the crop had been grown by the plaintiff, there was an agreement that it would be divided half and half between them. By way of security the plaintiff procured a blank sheet of stamp paper containing defendant's signature. The defendant pleads that possibly the plaintiff had utilised that paper as the agreement (Ex. 1 ).

( 3 ) BOTH the Courts below concurrently rejected the defence version of story and held that Ex. 1 was genuine and duly executed by the defen

















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