SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shivaraj V. Patil, B. N. Agrawal, JJ.
Pawan Kumar Dutt and Another – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala Devi – Respondent


Table of Content
1. identifiable property is necessary for specific performance. (Para 1 , 5)
2. vague agreements are unenforceable under contract law. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
3. relief cannot be granted without clarity of property. (Para 7 , 8)
4. final decision reflects rejection of the appeal. (Para 9)

Order

2. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that all the courts committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. According to him, from the suit agreement it is clear that the total area of land in Khasra No. 608 is 12 bighas 1 biswa, out of which, the defendants agreed to sell only 4 bighas and 2 biswas. The property in question also included a house built therein. The learned counsel urged that it was possible to grant a decree for specific performance, having regard to the description given in the agreement itself that the remaining area was available with the defen- dants. All the courts found it difficult to identify the suit property out of the total extent in the ab- sence of boundaries or other specifications. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited few decisions.

4. Looking to the facts of that case, as is clear from the descriptio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top