Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)A.C. Arulappan vs Smt. Ahalya Naik on 10 August, 2001
Lourdu Mari David And Ors vs Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy And Ors on 9 August, 1996
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000
In Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand [2000 (7) SCC 548] it was observed in Para 7 of the judgment that grant of a decree for specific performance of contract is not automatic and is one of the discretions of the court and the court has to consider the whether it would be fair, just and equitable. The court is guided by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
R. Leela Ammal vs V. Gopal on 6 June, 2017
K. Varadhan vs Pattammal (Dead) And Ors. on 28 April, 1992
In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (K. Varadhan vs. I. Pattammal (died) and four others) reported in (1992) 2 Law Weekly 209. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant on the above aspect. We find that the defendant has not raised this plea in her written statement. When the defendant herself has admitted the execution of agreement of sale dated 05.04.2008, Ex.A-1 and also the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance, the plea that she is an illiterate woman and as such the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant fully knows about the conditions cannot be accepted. It is also not the case of the defendant that she is an illiterate woman and she signed the document without knowing its contents. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein and against the defendant/appellant herein.
P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy vs M.K. Bhagyalakshmi And Anr on 20 February, 2007
19. Submission of Mr. Chandrashekhar to the effect that having regard to the rise in price of an immovable property in Bangalore, the Court ought not to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is stated to be rejected. We have noticed hereinbefore that the appellant had entered into an agreement for sale with others also. He had, even after 11.5.1979, received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the respondent. He with a view to defeat the lawful claim of Respondent No. 1 had raised a plea of having executed a prior agreement for sale in respect of self-same property in favour of his son-in-law who had never claimed any right thereunder or filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The Courts below have categorically arrived at a finding that the said contention of the appellant was not acceptable. Rise in the price of an immovable property by itself is not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement of sale. [See P.D' Souza (supra) and Jai Narain Parasrampuria (supra)]