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

2003 Supreme(MP) 123

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
VIJAY BHADUR, CHAMPALAL – Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA KUMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.M.Kulkarni, G.M.CHAPHEKAR, S.R.Saraf

A. K. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 passed by learned XIth, Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in civil suit No. 78-A/90 decreeing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance of contract, the defendants/appellants have preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts shorn on unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass. In brief the case of plaintiff is that, he is the tenant in the house bearing municipal No. 268 (New No. 381), situated at M. G. Road, Indore, the owner of which is appellant Vijay Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 1 ).

( 3 ) THE appellant No. 1 agreed to sell his house tothe plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and executed a document of agreement of Sale (Ex. P/1) on 6-12-1988 and received Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as an advance money from the plaintiff/respondent. It was agreed between the parties in the said agreement that appellant No. 1 would get his name mutated in the Municipal record of the disputed house within a period of six months and thereafter, would receive the balance of sale price Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty F











































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