Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Raj Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
RSA-1129-2013
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance, has been partly allowed and money decree has been granted; and suit of plaintiff has been partly decreed for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till date of actual realisation.
RSA-1486-2013
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2010; and against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been partly allowed and suit of plaintiff has been partly decreed for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till date of actual realisation.
Both the above-
The burden of proof for fraud allegations lies with the defendants, and mere allegations without evidence do not invalidate an agreement for specific performance.
Specific performance requires continuous proof of readiness and willingness, which was found lacking in this case, leading to a dismissal of the claim.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
