Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
Ram Singh & Ors. vs . Bhikam Chand & Ors. on 28 January, 2015 cites

P.C. Varghese vs Devaki Amma Balambika Devi & Ors on 7 October, 2005

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.C.Varghese's case has held that in view of Section 22(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court could grant a decree for partition and separate possession of the property in addition to a decree for specific performance of contract. In the case before the Hon'ble Surpeme Court, the appellant had relinquished his claim in respect of the property belonging to the minor and he also prayed for a decree for partition and such a prayer having been allowed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the decree of the learned trial court granting decree for partition and possession besides the decree for specific performance. Relying on this ration, this can be safely held that the defendant Lahiri was entitled to sell his specified and determined 1/4th share of the property namely agricultural land in question. Therefore, the character of the property to be joint between the four brothers cannot deter this court or even could not have deterred the learned trial court in upholding such decree for specific performance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 37 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Satya Jain(D) & Ors vs Anis Ahmed Rushdie(D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 December, 2012

27. On the other hand, in Satya Jain vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie - 2013 DNJ (SC) 127 also the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the decree of specific performance even though the time period lapsed in obtained the Income Tax Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax Authorities and in that process the time lapsed did not vitiate the Agreement and the specific performance should not be denied on the basis of escalation of prices during the said period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 121 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Baldev Raj Chopra vs Rakesh Kumar on 29 March, 2013

28. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants in the case of Baldev Raj Chopra vs. Rakesh Kumar - 2013(4) WLC (Raj.) 220, where, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the compensation instead of specific performance would be a reasonable relief in favour of the plaintiff was rendered in the context of it being a case of transfer of residential house No.130, `E' Block, Sri Ganganagar, measuring 32'x50' for the consideration of Rs.40,000/- and also the court found that the plaintiff was lacking readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, instead of specific performance, compensation to the plaintiff would be adequate. The Court also found that the consideration for transfer of property was inadequate.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - P K Lohra - Full Document

Saradamani Kandappan vs Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi, Mr. S. ... on 19 June, 2002

In the case of Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan vs. Mrs. S.Rajalakshmi & Ors.- 2011 (2) WLC (SC) 632 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring the time-limits stipulated in the agreement and the Courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance. The three years period is intended to assist purchasers in special cases, as for example, where the major part of the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession has been delivered in part performance, where equity shifts in favour of the purchaser.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 59 - K R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next