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

1991 Supreme(All) 367

N.N.MITHAL
NATHU SINGH, HARIYA – Appellant
Versus
JAGDISH SINGH, JHUMMAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.D.Prabhakar, VIJAI BAHADUR

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is by a plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. Only two main questions are raised in the appeal. Firstly whether on the findings recorded, the plaintiff had failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and secondly what value should be attached to the undelivered notices sent by the plaintiff prior to the suit ? one more question has emerged due to the change of circumstances during the pendency of the appeal. It is as to the effect of the acquisition of the land in question on the relief sought.

( 2 ) IT is undisputed that the plaintiff was the original owner of the land and on 3-7-1973 he had transferred the same to the defendant. Simultaneously the defendant admittedly had entered into an agreement for re-transferring the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within two years. Prior to the suit the plaintiff sent notices by registered post on 22-3-74and 6-5-1975 but both of them were returned undelivered with an endorsement of refusal. In the plaint it is averred that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and despite being approached by the plaintiff























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