Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUKH PAL – Appellant
Versus
RAJA RAM – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
CMs-221 & 222-C-2015
These applications were moved during pendency of the appeal, but vide an order dated 09.12.2022 of the Coordinate Bench, the same were ordered to be heard along with the main case.
By way of CM-221-2015, it was pointed out that during pendency of the appeal, appellant Sukh Pal had expired; that his legal heirs were not aware about the pendency of this appeal, or any order against alienation in the absence of any entry in the revenue record and they had executed a registered sale deed No.8975 dated 21.08.2012.
Both the applications [CMs-221 & 222-C-2015] are allowed. Subsequent events are taken on record, and subsequent transferees are permitted to be impleaded as respondents No.2 to 4. However, they will be bound by final outcome of this appeal.
RSA-2485-1995 (O&M)
This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.01.1994 and the learned First Appellate Court dated 22.07.1995, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff–Raja Ram (now represented through his legal representatives) for specific performance of a
The court upheld the agreement to sell's execution and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract. Specific performance granted with enhanced consideration due to market changes reflecting the....
Readiness and willingness for specific performance inferred from substantial earnest payment, possession handover, pleadings and conduct; concurrent findings immune from interference in second appeal....
(1) Specific Performance is no longer a discretionary relief – Plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing relief of specific performance despite fact that execution of agreement to sell in his favour h....
The presumption of validity of a registered agreement for sale cannot be rebutted without substantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it.
The burden of proof for fraud allegations lies with the defendants, and mere allegations without evidence do not invalidate an agreement for specific performance.
Continuous readiness and willingness from contract execution to judgment essential for specific performance claims, substantiated evidence is necessary to challenge agreements.
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
