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

2012 Supreme(P&H) 867

L.N.MITTAL
Sumitra Devi – Appellant
Versus
Ramroop – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants:Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Legal representatives of Ram Chander original defendant since deceased have filed this second appeal, having lost in both the courts below.

2. Respondent-plaintiff Ramroop filed suit against defendant- Ram Chander for possession of the suit land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.11.2006. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs.1,06,000/- and received Rs.1,05,000/- as earnest money and executed the aforesaid agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on 10.03.2007. The plaintiff went to office of Sub-Registrar on 10.03.2007. However, it was holiday on 10.03.2007 and 11.03.2007 being Saturday and Sunday. Then on 12.03.2007, the plaintiff again went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and remained there from morning till evening for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff also served notice on the defendant for executing the sale deed but the defendant refused to receive the notice. The plaintiff claimed that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement bu








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