Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
AMARJOT BHATTI
Alla Singh Since Deceased Through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Avinash Kaur – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Amarjot Bhatti, J. (Oral)
The petitioner - Alla Singh now represented through legal heir through its Special Power of Attorney Holder filed civil revision against impugned order dated 19.10.2021, Annexure P-1, passed in appeal No.63 of 2016 titled as Avinash Kaur v. Alla Singh and another, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby the application filed by the petitioner directing the respondent No.1/plaintiff/appellant to pay deficient stamp duty along with penalty pertaining to agreement to sell dated 04.03.2005, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Avinash Kaur filed civil suit No.314 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.03.2005 against Alla Singh (since deceased). In the plaint it was specifically mentioned that the possession of the property was delivered to her by
(1) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance must be dismissed when it is based on an instrument that is legally inadmissible as evidence – Plaintiff cannot claim relief on the basis of a do....
Documents marked as exhibits can be subsequently objected to for admissibility if not duly stamped, requiring judicial determination on the issue of admissibility.
The plaintiff must demonstrate both readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, including financial capacity, and agreements must be duly stamped to be enforceable.
The marking of a document is not the same as admitting it in evidence. Marking a document merely means that it has been produced before the Court and noted in the record, while admitting a document i....
An unregistered document can be admissible in a suit for specific performance, and a plaint cannot be rejected solely on the grounds of non-registration or insufficient stamp duty without trial evide....
Bir Singh v. Brij Kishore
-
Read summaryHimanshu Steel Ltd. v. M/s Dillip Construction Co.
-
Read summaryJaver Chand v. Pukhraj Surana
-
Read summaryOmprakash v. Laxminarayan
-
Read summaryRakesh Malhotra v. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu
-
Read summaryShyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.