Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)

Mrs.A.Kanthamani(Defendant) vs Mrs.Nasreen Ahmed(Plaintiff) on 27 October, 2006

"From perusal of the decisions referred above, it appears that it has been held by the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court that merely on the ground of delay,the relief for specific performance of contract cannot be refused but if the conduct of the plaintiff is such which is directly responsible in inducing the defendant to change his position to his prejudice then in that situation the relief for specific performance of contract which is a discretionary relief cannot be granted. So, in my view, the conduct of the plaintiff will be important in this case to decide -whether the relief for specific performance of contract for sale can be granted to him or not. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the sale deed in question was executed by original defendant Atma Ram Singh on 18.4.1973 (although the defendant Atma Ram Singh has denied this execution). It is also admitted fact that on that date the sale deed could not be presented before the Registrar for registration and the original defendant Atma Ram Singh handed over the said sale deed to the plaintiff and promised to register the sale deed on the next date but then the plaintiff never became ready for registering the same. Thus, it is clear that on 18.4.1973 itself the possession of the sale deed was transferred to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not take any attempt to get it compulsorily registered within a period of four months, as provided under Section 23 of the Registration Act and even after expirty of the said period the plaintiff never tried to apply before the registering authorities for condoning the delay under the provisio of Section 25 of the Act. He also did not try to get any summons or notice served upon the original defendant Atma Ram Singh asking him to register the documents.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 11 - A C Adityan - Full Document

Rahima (Died) vs P.Mangilal (Died) ... ... on 22 December, 2010

(g) In Amar Singh v. Baliram Singh reported in 2006(2) Civ.C.R. 637(Pat.), it is held that 'inaction of the plaintiff in not taking any remedy provided under Registration Act and failure to take any action for about 12 months tantamount to abandonment of contract and waiver of right to sue for specific performance of contract of sale and the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance.'
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Maha Singh & Anr vs Smt. Vedo Devi & Ors on 9 February, 2010

In Amar Singh v. Baliram Singh, AIR 2006 Patna 145, it was held that in a case where defendant executes a sale deed in favour of plaintiff but he refuses to get it registered, two remedies are available to plaintiff- One is to apply for compulsory registration of document under Section 23 of Registration Act and in case prayer for registration is refused it is open to him to bring a suit under Section 77. Another remedy available to plaintiff is to take recourse to fuller and more comprehensive remedy for filing suit for specific performance of contract for sale and since both remedies are available to plaintiff, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not entitled to sue for specific performance of contract when he did not pursue remedy under the Registration Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document
1