Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Soosai Michael Peter vs Balathasar on 21 February, 2011 cites

Veerayee Ammal vs Seeni Ammal on 19 October, 2001

He also submitted that as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in VEERAYEE AMMAL v. SEENI AMMAL (AIR 2001 SC 2920) for the proposition that whether a party was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract cannot be a substantial question of law within the ambit of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure when both the courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore, the findings of the courts below cannot be interfered with in the second appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 262 - Full Document

G.Ramalingam vs T.Vijayarangam on 6 November, 2006

7. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the agreement of sale was dated 1.3.1996 and as per the endorsement, Ex.A2 dated 19.10.1996, the sale deed has to be completed within two months from the date of passing of final decree and final decree was passed on 23.7.2002 and the plaintiff was informed orally by the appellant even in the year 2002 and the respondent/plaintiff only wanted his money back and the respondent was also not having sufficient means to pay the balance sale consideration and that is evident by the suit filed by State Bank of India in O.S.No.112 of 1992 for recovery of loan amount and the respondent did not repay the loan amount and also filed a counter in the execution petition which was marked as Ex.B12 wherein he has stated specifically that he has no means to pay the loan amount and that would prove that in the year 2004, he was not having sufficient amount to repay the loan and therefore, it cannot be contended that the respondent had means to pay the amount and was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent was not ready as he was not having the means to pay the amount and hence, he is not entitled to get specific performance of the agreement of sale. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the conduct of the respondent would also disentitle him from claiming any right in the suit property and he has instigated various persons to file claim petitions in the execution application filed by the bank in O.S.No.112 of 1992 as evidenced by Exs.B11 and B15 and he also instigated his brother to file O.S.No.783 of 1982 to declare the decree passed in O.S.Nos.84 of 1975 and 74 of 1976 as null and void as evidenced by Ex.B13 and that suit was allowed to be dismissed and all these facts would prove that the respondent is a person, who is not honest and will go to any extent to prevent the execution of the decree passed against him and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the specific performance as the specific performance is purely a discretionary relief. He also relied upon the judgments in PONNAMMAL v. T.BALASUBRAMANIAM ((2009) 1 MLJ 379), RAMALINGAM, G. v. T.VIJAYARANGAM (2007 (1) CTC 243) and MARUTHAI,S. v. GOKULDOSS DHARAM DOSSS (1999 (III) CTC 724) for the proposition that the party seeking specific performance must show his continuous readiness and willingness from the date of execution till the date of filing of the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - K M Ram - Full Document

S. Maruthai And Another vs Gokuldoss Dharam Doss And Four Others on 5 November, 1999

7. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the agreement of sale was dated 1.3.1996 and as per the endorsement, Ex.A2 dated 19.10.1996, the sale deed has to be completed within two months from the date of passing of final decree and final decree was passed on 23.7.2002 and the plaintiff was informed orally by the appellant even in the year 2002 and the respondent/plaintiff only wanted his money back and the respondent was also not having sufficient means to pay the balance sale consideration and that is evident by the suit filed by State Bank of India in O.S.No.112 of 1992 for recovery of loan amount and the respondent did not repay the loan amount and also filed a counter in the execution petition which was marked as Ex.B12 wherein he has stated specifically that he has no means to pay the loan amount and that would prove that in the year 2004, he was not having sufficient amount to repay the loan and therefore, it cannot be contended that the respondent had means to pay the amount and was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent was not ready as he was not having the means to pay the amount and hence, he is not entitled to get specific performance of the agreement of sale. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the conduct of the respondent would also disentitle him from claiming any right in the suit property and he has instigated various persons to file claim petitions in the execution application filed by the bank in O.S.No.112 of 1992 as evidenced by Exs.B11 and B15 and he also instigated his brother to file O.S.No.783 of 1982 to declare the decree passed in O.S.Nos.84 of 1975 and 74 of 1976 as null and void as evidenced by Ex.B13 and that suit was allowed to be dismissed and all these facts would prove that the respondent is a person, who is not honest and will go to any extent to prevent the execution of the decree passed against him and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the specific performance as the specific performance is purely a discretionary relief. He also relied upon the judgments in PONNAMMAL v. T.BALASUBRAMANIAM ((2009) 1 MLJ 379), RAMALINGAM, G. v. T.VIJAYARANGAM (2007 (1) CTC 243) and MARUTHAI,S. v. GOKULDOSS DHARAM DOSSS (1999 (III) CTC 724) for the proposition that the party seeking specific performance must show his continuous readiness and willingness from the date of execution till the date of filing of the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S.Ramnath Publications vs A.R.Madana Gopal on 25 July, 2008

He also relied upon the decision in RAMNATH PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. v. A.R.MADANA GOPAL ((2008) 8 MLJ 873) for the proposition that mere pleading in the plaint and assertion by the plaintiff that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is not enough and the fact that stamp papers were not purchased and balance sale consideration was not tendered would prove that the plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of the contract.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - M Chockalingam - Full Document

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999

8. On the other hand, Mr.P.Santiago Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both the courts below concurrently held that the agreement was genuine, time was not the essence of the contract, the parties agreed to complete the sale within two months from the date of passing of final decree and passing of final decree was not informed to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant and after coming to know of the same, notice was sent by the respondent and immediately thereafter, the suit was filed and such concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that both the courts below have further held that the respondent was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and such findings based on appreciation of evidence and findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the second appeal. He also relied upon the judgment reported in P.G.TANAWADE v. G.B.KADAM (AIR 1997 SC 463), KONDIBA DAGADU KADAM v. SAVITRIBAI SOPAN GUJAR & OTHERS (1999 SAR (CIVIL) 623), VEERAYYE AMMAL v. SEENI AMMAL (2001 SAR (Civil) 923) and STATE OF U.P. v. RAM CHANDRA (AIR 1976 SC 2547).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 739 - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Ram Chandra Trivedi on 1 September, 1976

8. On the other hand, Mr.P.Santiago Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both the courts below concurrently held that the agreement was genuine, time was not the essence of the contract, the parties agreed to complete the sale within two months from the date of passing of final decree and passing of final decree was not informed to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant and after coming to know of the same, notice was sent by the respondent and immediately thereafter, the suit was filed and such concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that both the courts below have further held that the respondent was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and such findings based on appreciation of evidence and findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the second appeal. He also relied upon the judgment reported in P.G.TANAWADE v. G.B.KADAM (AIR 1997 SC 463), KONDIBA DAGADU KADAM v. SAVITRIBAI SOPAN GUJAR & OTHERS (1999 SAR (CIVIL) 623), VEERAYYE AMMAL v. SEENI AMMAL (2001 SAR (Civil) 923) and STATE OF U.P. v. RAM CHANDRA (AIR 1976 SC 2547).
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 257 - J Singh - Full Document

Ponnammal vs T.Balasubramaniam(Died) on 7 October, 2008

7. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the agreement of sale was dated 1.3.1996 and as per the endorsement, Ex.A2 dated 19.10.1996, the sale deed has to be completed within two months from the date of passing of final decree and final decree was passed on 23.7.2002 and the plaintiff was informed orally by the appellant even in the year 2002 and the respondent/plaintiff only wanted his money back and the respondent was also not having sufficient means to pay the balance sale consideration and that is evident by the suit filed by State Bank of India in O.S.No.112 of 1992 for recovery of loan amount and the respondent did not repay the loan amount and also filed a counter in the execution petition which was marked as Ex.B12 wherein he has stated specifically that he has no means to pay the loan amount and that would prove that in the year 2004, he was not having sufficient amount to repay the loan and therefore, it cannot be contended that the respondent had means to pay the amount and was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent was not ready as he was not having the means to pay the amount and hence, he is not entitled to get specific performance of the agreement of sale. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the conduct of the respondent would also disentitle him from claiming any right in the suit property and he has instigated various persons to file claim petitions in the execution application filed by the bank in O.S.No.112 of 1992 as evidenced by Exs.B11 and B15 and he also instigated his brother to file O.S.No.783 of 1982 to declare the decree passed in O.S.Nos.84 of 1975 and 74 of 1976 as null and void as evidenced by Ex.B13 and that suit was allowed to be dismissed and all these facts would prove that the respondent is a person, who is not honest and will go to any extent to prevent the execution of the decree passed against him and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the specific performance as the specific performance is purely a discretionary relief. He also relied upon the judgments in PONNAMMAL v. T.BALASUBRAMANIAM ((2009) 1 MLJ 379), RAMALINGAM, G. v. T.VIJAYARANGAM (2007 (1) CTC 243) and MARUTHAI,S. v. GOKULDOSS DHARAM DOSSS (1999 (III) CTC 724) for the proposition that the party seeking specific performance must show his continuous readiness and willingness from the date of execution till the date of filing of the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Mani vs Batcha Sahib And 2 Others on 20 September, 2000

He also relied upon the judgment reported in MANI v. BATCHA SAHIB (2000 (IV) CTC 329) for the proposition that when the plaintiff admitted that he did not have the money to buy stamps for registration, that would prove that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document
1