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

1985 Supreme(All) 66

N.N.MITHAL
BIJAI BAHADUR – Appellant
Versus
SHRI SHIV KUMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.K.O.Srivastava, J.N.Chandra, P.K.Bisariya, Rajeshji Verma

N. N. MITHAL, J.

( 1 ) IN this second appeal, only a short question regarding due compliance of S. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act has been raised. This was neither raised in the trial Court nor in the Court below. It is sought to be urged for the first time in second appeal here. An application seeking permission to urge this point was made but despite an opportunity being given to oppose it the same has not been availed of. Since this is purely a legal question, I have heard the parties on this point as well.

( 2 ) THE appellants are transferees from the original owner. It was plaintiffs case that the original owner had agreed to transfer the land by a written document on 27-10-1968. At the time of the execution of the agreement, part consideration was paid while the rest was to be paid at registration for which three months time was agreed upon. Since the original owner did not execute the sale deed as agreed and began to prevaricate in the matter and later when it was rumoured that she was trying to transfer the land to the appellants, the present suit was filed, after serving a notice.

( 3 ) BOTH the sets of defendants denied execution of the agreement or that 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