Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
GEORGE M. MATHEWS @ GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED HANEEFA RAWTHER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial questions for consideration in appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts surrounding the agreement and breach. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evidence marking and witnesses involved. (Para 5) |
| 4. sub judge decision overview. (Para 6) |
| 5. appellant's claims and arguments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. analysis of evidence supporting appellant's claims. (Para 12) |
| 7. willingness and readiness assessment of plaintiff. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. plaintiff's attitude towards performing contract. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. variance between pleadings and proof. (Para 21) |
| 10. significance of conduct in exercising discretion. (Para 22) |
| 11. standards for equitable relief and conduct. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 12. final decision and orders. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT
C.Jayachandran, J.
1. Whether 'readiness' implies 'willingness' in the context of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963? If there is overall lack of bonafides in the conduct of the plaintiff/vendee, as discernible from the evidence on record, whether the discretion under Section 20 can be exercised in favour of the plaintiff, even if he was found to have been possessed of the necessary funds for payment of balance considerat
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
