Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Guruswami Gounder vs Kesave Reddiar And Anr. on 3 November, 1995 cites

Nallaya Gounder And Another vs P. Ramaswami Gounder And Another on 25 March, 1993

The same is the rule in Nallova Gounder and Anr. v. P. Ramaswami (Sounder and three Ors., 1992 (2) LW 86 where it was held that the false claim will disentitle the plaintiff from getting performance. Utmost good faith and honesty is expected from the parties who want the discretion of court to be exercised in his favour. We have meticulously considered all facts and circumstances of the case. The court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. The motive behind the litigation should also enter the judicial verdict. The court is bound to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff. It specific performance is allowed, the plaintiff will be getting an unfair advantage"
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

S.S. Chokkalingam vs R.B.S. Mani And Ors. on 23 September, 1993

9. A careful consideration of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judges of the two Division Benches in the decisions cited supra, would go to show that the respective plaintiffs who approached the competent court in those cases have found to have not only pleaded false cases but tried to get a decree for specific performance of agreement in varied form (Chockalingam's case 1994 1 L.W.321 and that the plaintiffs attempted to plead part satisfaction of the consideration relying upon materials and liabilities totally unconnected with the suit agreement,. Though there can be no dispute with reference to the position of law that good faith and honesty are expected from parties, who want discretion of the court to be exercised in their favour, and that too, in exercise of jurisdiction in equity, there is no comparison of the cases which were under consideration of the learned Judges of the Division Benches referred to supra with the case before me. It is not every incorrect case pleaded or plea made and rejected by the courts that recoils on the plaintiff to be dubbed and castigated as having come with a false case or unclean hands to seek an equitable remedy available in the discretion of the court. It should depend upon the facts of each case and the peculiar circumstances substantiated in a particular case before court, and there can be no standardised formula to uniformly deal with the plea in all matters. As noticed earlier during the course of narration of facts, it is seen that though the plaintiff pleaded that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- has been paid on 29.4.1979 without obtaining a receipt or endorsement therefore, he has also stated that if the court is not satisfied with the claim of such payment on that particular date, the plaintiff was ready and willing to deposit that amount also. In the context of the said plea and the conduct of the plaintiff, there is no scope for condemning the plaintiff as having come with unclean hands or with a false case, merely because he could not establish his plea of payment on that particular date. In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff should be denied the relief of specific performance on the ground of his alleged approach to the court with unclean hands.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

H.G. Krishna Reddy And Co. vs M.M. Thimmaiah And Anr. on 24 January, 1983

"It is not necessary to refer to the evidence of the respondents as the evidence of the appellant is wholly unsatisfactory. It is clear from what we have stated above that the appellant has never been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is well settled that a person cannot claim the relief of specific performance unless he proves his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, (vide H.O. Krishna Reddy and Co., v. M. Thimmiah ). It is also seen that the appellant has come to court with a false case that no time limit was fixed for completion of the transaction and that he was permitted to pay the amounts in driblets. We have "already referred to the letters which show that the appellant himself fixed the time limit and the respondents gracefully agreed for such extensions. Inspite of such extensions, the appellant failed to perform his part of the contract. It is also seen that the appellant has put forward a false case that there was a panchayat. There is no evidence whatever to substantiate that case."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

G. Chelliah Nadar (Died) And Ors. vs Periasami Nadar And Ors. on 27 January, 1993

This written statement was filed on 26.3.1982. Six months latter, has filed the suit for specific performance on 23.9.1982. Once again he has reiterated that there was no tenancy and he is in possession only pursuant to the contract" of sale. That case is falsified by the production of Ex.B.11 which he had to admit. We have already referred to his admission that there was a tenancy agreement before the agreement for sale. Thus, the appellant is guilty of making a false plea. It is well known that a person who has come to court with a false case is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. Vide: G. Chelliah Nadar (Died) and 4 Ors. v. Periasamy Nadar and 3 Ors., 1993-2- LW 84 and Nallaya Gounder and Anr. v. P. Ramaswami Gounder and 3 Ors., 1993 (2) L.W 86.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

K. Krishnan Nair And Ors. vs K. Parameswaran Pillai (Died) And Ors. on 26 August, 1993

Likewise there is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant has agreed to pay the amount which he borrowed from one Narasimhalu Chetty. After getting voluntary assignment of the promissory note, the plaintiff wants that case also to be settled. We do not find any justification in granting relief of specific performance especially when the plaintiff has come forward with false claim. It is settled by this Court in K. Krishnan Nair and three Ors. v. V.K. Parameswaran Pillai and 23 Ors., 1993 2 L.W. 411 that when the plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands, but put forward false case, he is not entitled to get specific performance. It is also held therein that the suit is not maintainable if the plaintiff wants to enforce a contract different from what was entered into between the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1