Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. EASWARAN S., J
SUNIL,DIED(LHRS IMPLEADED),SATHEESAN,KANJANA M.V.,VISHNUPRASAD P.S.,APARNA P.S. – Appellant
Versus
BABU – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. frustration of contract due to fraud. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on enforceability of agreements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. applicability of doctrine of lis pendens. (Para 10 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. judicial decision on specific enforcement. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
Can a plea of frustration of contract be raised by the subsequent assignees of a property which is the subject matter of contract of sale? Should the courts accept such a plea, if the frustration of the contract is self-induced? These distinctive issues are required to be addressed in this case.
2. The defendants 2 and 3 in a suit for specific performance have come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings against them. Pertinently, the legal heirs of the 1st defendant who died during the pendency of the first appeal are not made party to the proceedings.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
An extent of 40.25 Cents shown as plot ‘A’ in Ext. C4 (a) plan in O.S. No.307 of 1968 on the files of Munsiff Court Irinjalakuda and a further extent of 27.525 Cents shown as plot ‘B’ of the same plan was the subject matter of an agreement of sale entered between the 1st respondent/plaintif
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
