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

2017 Supreme(P&H) 2172

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Brahm Dutt – Appellant
Versus
Sarabjit Singh – Respondent


For the Petitioners:Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral):- This is a second appeal filed by the defendant challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff of specific performance has been decreed. For the convenience the parties would be referred herein as the plaintiff and the defendant as were described in the original suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the defendant had entered into an agreement dated 14.02.2011 with him in for sale of a house, as detailed in the head note in the plaint, measuring 23 marlas. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 40,50,000/-. Out of that Rs.10,00,000/- were received by the defendant as earnest money. The target date for the execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.04.2012. It was further claimed that on 20.04.2012 the plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur; along with the balance sale consideration. However, the defendant did not reach there, to execute the sale deed. Resultantly, on the target date, the sale deed could not be executed. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that thereafter, he sent a legal notice da



















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