Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Vijay Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Khushal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J.—This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA-1494-2016 (Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh) and RSA-1618-2016 (Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh).
2. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed challenging a common judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby two civil appeals, bearing Civil Appeal No. 22515/2011-12 (Khushal Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal) and Civil Appeal No. 22514/2010-2012 (Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh), were decided.
3. In the present case, dispute relates to half share of House No.1481 to 1483 and 154/111-2 min, situated at Katra Jalianwala, Amritsar, measuring 100 sq. yards. Based on an agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988 regarding the property in question with the owner i.e. the present appellant/defendant against a total sale consideration of Rs.3 lacs, having paid an advance of Rs.30000/-, a suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by respondent/plaintiff. It was also pleaded in the suit that as per the original agreement dated 12.12.1988, sale deed was to be executed within a period of 05 months thereof, howeve
(1) Admitted Signatures - Though Section 73 of the 1872 Act empowers the Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, however, the same cannot be done on a casual perusal or....
The court emphasized the importance of matching signatures, entitlement to raise the plea of readiness and willingness despite denying the execution of documents, the effect of material interpolation....
The absence of signature proof does not invalidate a specific performance decree if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under the Specific Relief ....
The court upheld that corroborated expert evidence can establish the authenticity of a contested agreement, supporting the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.
The court must exercise discretion judiciously in granting specific performance, taking into account the evidence and circumstances of the case.
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
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
