A.Ramanathan Chetthiar vs R.Ranganayaki on 29 February, 2008
(xiv) M.M.S.Investments v. Veerappan reported in 2000 (I) CTC 538.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (1.85 seconds)S.Chellamuthu (Died) vs P.Subramani on 13 October, 2023
In Kadupugotla Varalakshmi Vs. Vudagiri Venkata Rao and
others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 365, the another three member of
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to Ram Awadh (Dead) by Lrs
and others Vs. Achhaibar Dubey and another and M.M.S. Investments,
Madurai and others Vs. V.Veerappan and others has taken a view that the
defence of readiness and willingness is available to the subsequent purchaser.
The relevant observation of Apex Court reads as follows:
A.K. Muthusamy Gounder vs Selvakumar
In support of his contention he
has placed reliance of the Judgment in M.M.S. Investments, Madurai and
Others v. V.V. Veerappan and others [2007 AIR (SC) 2663] in which the
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:
K.R.Sundararaj vs M.Nataraj .. 1St
In the facts of M.M.S. Investments
case [M.M.S. Investments v. V. Veerappan, (2007) 9
SCC 660] , after the trial court decreed the suit, the
property was conveyed to the plaintiff. It is only
73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.1116/2015
thereafter that the appellants in that case purchased
the property. In the facts of the present case,
Defendants 2 and 3 purchased the property even
before the suit for specific performance was filed. In
the present case there is no conveyance in favour of
the plaintiff after which Defendants 2 and 3 purchased
the property.
A.K. Muthusamy Gounder vs Selvakumar
In support of his contention he
has placed reliance of the Judgment in M.M.S. Investments, Madurai and
Others v. V.V. Veerappan and others [2007 AIR (SC) 2663] in which the
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:
Virendra Pagare vs Dharmesh Jain on 20 November, 2024
In the facts of M.M.S. Investments case, after the trial
court decreed the suit, the property was conveyed to the
plaintiff. It is only thereafter that the appellants in that case
purchased the property. In the facts of the present case,
Defendants 2 and 3 purchased the property even before the suit
for specific performance was filed. In the present case there is
no conveyance in favour of the plaintiff after which Defendants
2 and 3 purchased the property. The ratio of M.M.S.
Investments would therefore be of no assistance to the appellant
herein. On the other hand, the three-Judge Bench decision
in Ram Awadh would apply on all fours."
Sri Joseph Kantharaj vs Smt Joseph Sunder Augustine Reddy on 20 May, 2021
[Emphasis supplied]
[(2007) 9 SCC 660 - M.M.S. INVESTMENTS,
MADURAI AND OTHERS Vs. V. VEERAPPAN AND
OTHERS]
Raj Kr. Singh vs Madhuri Kumari @ Madhubala & Ors on 20 August, 2014
So far this submission is concerned, in the decision of
M.M.S. Investments, Madurai (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has referred the decision of (2000) 2 Supreme court Cases
428 (Ram Awadh and others v. Achhaibar Dubey and another)
and without discussing the facts of that case at paragraph 5
mentioned that it is to be noted that the decision in Ram Awadh
case (supra) relates to a case where there was only an agreement.
Except this there is nothing with respect to the case of Ram
Awadh.
B Poornachandra Tejasvi vs Smt Shanthamma on 27 December, 2022
38. The First Appellate Court placed reliance on the
decision in the case of M.M.S. INVESTMENTS, MADURAI AND
OTHERS vs. V.VEERAPPAN AND OTHERS4. The facts and
circumstances in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court is
that a suit for specific performance of the contract was
decreed by the trial Court and after passing such decree, the
defendants through their power of attorney holder sold large
extent of properties including the subject-matter of the suit in
4
(2007) 9 SCC 660
30
favour of a third party who are the appellants before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellants being the subsequent
purchasers after passing of the decree, filed application before
the High Court seeking to implead themselves as appellants in
the appeal that was preferred by the original defendants. The
High Court on considering rival submissions held that there is
no bar for the appellants to raise any issue on merits of the
appeal for consideration except the defence of readiness and
willingness as provided under Section 16(c) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. Accordingly, the CMP filed by the subsequent
purchasers was dismissed. The same was challenged before
the Hon'ble Apex Court. Under such circumstances, Hon'ble
Apex Court held in Paragraph No.6 as under:
Smt.Sudha W/O Lalitkumar Giri vs M/S Rasshi Farms on 23 August, 2022
In the light of the ratio of the larger bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Awadh's case, the
contention that the defence under Section 16(c) is not
open to defendants and the judgment in M.M.S
Investments' case has to be followed cannot be accepted.
The trial Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings,
evidence, law and the precedents on compliance of Section
16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the finding that
the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform its part
of the contract is unsustainable.