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

1990 Supreme(P&H) 251

G.C.MITTAL, JAI SINGH SEKHON
Roop Chand Chaudhari – Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Kumari – Respondent


Judgment

G.C.MITAL, J.

1. After filing a suit for refund of the advance and an equal sum by way of damages and interest for not executing the sale deed within the specified time can the suit be allowed to be amended to seek decree for specific performance of the contract and claim the original relief as an alternative relief in a suit filed by the person who agreed to purchase is the legal issue which we are called upon to determine on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court. Our answer is that amendment cannot be allowed.

2. Roop Chand Chaudhary on 25-1-1988 agreed to sell his house No. 4, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh to Smt. Ranjit Kumari for Rs. 18,50,000 / - and the former received Rs. 50,000 / - as earnest money. On 27-1-1988 Rs. 1,50,000.00 more was received by him on 10-5-1988. By this time, the seller had received Rs. 4,00,000.00- from the purchaser.

3. The parties mutually agreed to extend the date twice: once to 10-7-1988 and secondly, to 29-7-1988.

4. Smt. Ranjit Kumari, the person who was to purchase the house, filed the suit on 17-8-1988 under Order 37, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code in short) for recovery of Rs. 8,30,510.00 against Ro






















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