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

2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27042

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD, J
IGNATIOUS – Appellant
Versus
DOMINIC    Advocate - GEORGE MATHEW, ,GEORGE MATHEW,K S HARIHARAPUTHRAN – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of Ext.P1 agreement for sale dated 24.07.2002. Petitioner was the defendant. Ext.P2 is copy of the plaint. Petitioner was set exparte, allegedly on account of the negligence of his advocate. Ext.P3 is copy of the judgment passed exparte in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, by invoking Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short, “the Act”) read with Order XXI Rule 32 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “the Code”) the respondent filed Ext.P4 application for getting a sale deed executed through the court as the petitioner did not obey the decree. It is further prayed by the respondent that the property be delivered to him, despite having a recital in Ext.P1 that possession of the property had been handed over to him. Then the petitioner, for the first time, entered the arena of litigation and questioned the executability of the decree. Ext.P5 is the objection filed by the petitioner. He contended that after introducing Section 17(1A) to the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, “Registration Act”)

Ext.P1, an unregistered agreement to assign, cannot confer any right on the respond

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