T.MATHIVANAN
R. Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
N. Subbiah – Respondent
T. Mathivanan, J.— Challenge is made in this appeal by the defendant to the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.01.2007 and made in O.S.No.1433 of 2006, on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The facts, which absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:
The original legal characters of the parties to the suit may not be changed and be it as it is in the suit.
2.1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance of sale consideration and in case the defendant fails to execute the sale deed, the Court may execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on deposit of balance of sale consideration.
2.2. That on 11.7.2005, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant and thereby, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,55,000. On the date of sale agreement, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000 towards advance and it was mutually agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a
Rameshwar Prasad v. Basanti Lal
Pramod Buildings and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shanta Chopra
Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha
Pramod Buildings and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shanta Chopra
Chand Rani (Smt.) (dead) by LRs v. Kamal Rani (Smt.) (dead) by LRs.
Lourdu Mari David and Ors. v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.