Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)

Guruswamy Nadar vs P.Lakshmi Ammal(D) Through Lrs. & Ors on 1 May, 2008

Though, with much fanfare learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance on Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (D) through LRs and others 2008(3) R.C.R (Civil) 173 however, in view of the factual disparity as it is the admitted position in the cited ratio that the sale was after the filing of the suit in question and which has led to the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of property Act. In the present case, the suit has been filed admittedly on 12.10.1982 whereas, sale deed by the owners in favour of the subsequent purchasers has come about on 8.6.1982, much prior thereto, and, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant falls to the ground. Though, the stand of the plaintiff as PW5 as to his readiness and willingness is not corroborated by any material evidence when he accepts that he has never served any legal notice and is totally silent having ever approached the office of the Sub-Registrar or the defendants and the specific date and time to prove the element of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract are matters which have an adverse impact on the case of the appellant and shows that neither mentally nor physically he was ready and willing to do so. Even if, the Court intends to order specific performance of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff it would lead to more complications and rather would make any relief elusive to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 80 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010

Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate counsel for the appellant has laid much stress by citing three judgments in Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (D) through LRs and others 2008(3) R.C.R (Civil) 173; Rattan Lal (since deceased) through his legal representatives vs. S.N. Bhalla and others 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 283 and Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 189 arguing that since it is during the operation of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff the sale deeds have been executed and, thus, are clearly hit by the principle of Lis Pendens enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the subsequent sale cannot have the overriding effect on the earlier executed agreement to sell.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 594 - Full Document

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

The same is well elicited in the own affidavit of the plaintiff and in his cross-examination as PW5 as well as of his witness PW2 Giani Uttam Singh, Scribe of this agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. More so, the pleadings of the plaintiff by way of the suit simplicitor reveals that the plaintiff has neither sought to challenge the sale deeds both dated 8.6.1982 Ex.D1 and Ex.D3 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 nor has sought any such relief for possession or partition in terms of Section 22 of the Act. Since admittedly after the demise of their predecessor-in-interest, Bharpur Singh, the widow and his children defendants No. 5 to 8 have stepped into his shoes in equal shares and, therefore, being unpartitioned joint property it would be highly impossible in the absence of any issue or relief being sought to grant of such a relief and the provisions of Section 22 by way of proviso to Sub-section 2 mandates that no such relief for possession, partition etc. can be granted unless it has been specifically claimed further debars this Court from accepting this vehement argument of the learned AARTI SHARMA 2014.11.26 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.2498 of 1986 -8- counsel for the appellant and there is no bar as has been laid down in AIR 2006 S.C. 145 in the case of P.C. Varghese vs. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 37 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1