Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
UMESH M ADIGA, J
FAKKIRAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA NADATTI, SINCE DEAD, REP. BY HIS LRS. – Appellant
Versus
MAHENDRA S/O. BASTIMAL RATHOD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case initiation and appeal against judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the agreement and performance obligations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendants' arguments against the agreement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. claims of fraud and manipulation by the plaintiff. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 20) |
| 5. plaintiff's evidence and arguments in defense. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's analysis and final ruling on hardship. (Para 22 , 35) |
| 7. enforceability of agreements under land reforms act. (Para 41 , 43 , 47 , 61) |
| 8. judicial precedents impacting case decision. (Para 55 , 56) |
| 9. conclusion based on analysis of tendered facts. (Para 59 , 62) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
The defendant Nos.2 (A to D) have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2022, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.511/2014. Respondent No.1 herein, i.e., plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of contract and it was decreed by the trial Curt. The same is challenged in the present appeal.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that;
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
