G. T. Girish vs Y. Subba Raju (D) By Lrs

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 101

K. M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
G. T. Girish – Appellant
Versus
Y. Subba Raju (D) By Lrs – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR Ms. Mansi Binjrajka, Adv. Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR

Table of Content
1. factual background of the property dispute. (Para 3)
2. trial court's decision on specific performance. (Para 4)
3. contention on maintainability of the suit. (Para 6)
4. defendant's arguments against the validity of the agreement. (Para 7)
5. legal framework of the property law pertinent to the case. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. implications of the lessee and tenant relationship. (Para 27)
7. summary of correspondence leading to the suit. (Para 34)
8. summary of trial court findings. (Para 46)
9. conclusion on the enforceability of the agreement. (Para 112)
10. final decision and order of the court. (Para 113 , 114)

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

2. The appellants are defendant 1(a), defendant 1(b) and second defendant in a Suit filed for specific performance. Defendant 1(a) and Defendant 1(b) have filed SLP(C)No.6858 of 2017 while defendant No.2 has filed SLP(C)No.6857 of 2017. The Trial Court while refusing specific performance, directed the return of the amount paid by the plaintiff under the contract. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs appeal and directe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 101

K. M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAG. T. Girish – AppellantVersusY. Subba Raju (D) By Lrs – Respondent

K. M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
G. T. Girish – Appellant
Versus
Y. Subba Raju (D) By Lrs – Respondent