Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, K. Rajasekar, JJ
Cuddalore Powergen Corp – Appellant
Versus
Suganya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit for specific performance of 1997 sale agreement barred by limitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. no charge created under section 55(6)(b) tpa for advance. (Para 5 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. agreement does not create interest; relief extinguished by limitation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. consent-based refund of advance share without interest ordered. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court / Fast Track Court – II, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. They had instituted a Suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 12.09.1997 entered into with the respondents herein.
2.The 1st and 2nd respondents are sisters and the 3rd and 4th respondents are legal representatives of yet another sister. All the three sisters were holding totally 99 acres of land. They had entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant herein on 12.09.1997. At the time of the agreement of sale, an advance of Rs.12,50,000/- had been paid. This would indicate that the share of each one of the three sisters would be around Rs.4,16,000/-.
3.It is contended on behalf of the appe
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
