Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS. K.S. HEMALEKHA, J
HABIB KHAN – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMAD PEER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of the agreement and readiness to perform (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. lack of evidence for execution and readiness (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments for and against specific performance (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. consideration of prior suits and limitations (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. order ii rule 2 cpc implications (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. conclusion on limitation and res judicata (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 7. dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the trial court's decision (Para 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Plaint averments
within 3 months after furnishing the original documents of title. It is further averred that at the time of agreement, defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were minors and therefore defendant No. 1 as their natural guardian executed the agreement. The plaintiff asserts that the suit schedule property was represented to be free from encumbrances, loan or liabilities. He has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Despite repeated requests, the defendants kept postponing the execution of the sale deed. Plaintiff caused legal notice dated 18.06.2019 calling upon the defendants to receive the balance consideration and to execute the sale deed. However, in spite of the service of the said notice,
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
