Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Subbaiyan – Appellant
Versus
Rajalakshmi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims specific performance of sale agreement for property. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. defendant asserts inconsistent and mutually destructive pleas invalidating agreement. (Para 5 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. high court jurisdiction in second appeal requires substantial question of law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 47) |
| 4. evidence confirms agreement validity and rejection of defendant's claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. unregistered agreement admissible to prove contract for specific performance. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. limitation starts from date of refusal of performance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. ready and willingness requirement mitigated by payment and possession. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. specific performance granted due to conduct and evidence alignment. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 48) |
JUDGMENT
1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.43 of 2021 dated 21.07.2023 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District Court, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.305 of 2015 dated 08.10.2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai.
2. The appellant is the de
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
