Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.58 seconds)
Gangaa Educational And Welfare Trust vs C. Thangaraj on 14 July, 2025 cites

Bhaskaran Nadar(Died) vs Kesavan Nadar (Died) on 2 December, 2009

In the reported ruling in 2010-1-L.W.422 [Bhaskaran Nadar (died) vs. Kesavan Nadar (died) & others] the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court based on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the agreement holder 48/66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm ) S.A.No.470 & 540 of 2013 has to plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the discretion vest with the Court. It is not necessary that in all cases of Specific Performance Act, the Court has to grant decree for specific performance of contract. It is the discretionary relief by the Court. Here, the discretionary relief cannot be exercised as the Plaintiff had not proved the case for specific performance of contract regarding payment of advance of Rs.60,000/- to Ramamoorthi whom the Plaintiff claims had lend money to Defendant-1 which is disputed by the Defendant-1. As per this ruling, the judgment of the learned District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perrundurai, is found erroneous. The judgment of the learned Sub Judge, Perundurai, is found well reasoned judgment on proper appreciation of evidence and attending circumstances of this case as per the above ruling.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - A Ali - Full Document

K. Saroja vs Valliammal And Ors. on 8 March, 1996

48. The reported ruling in 1996 (2) MLJ 199 [K.Saroja vs. Valliammal and others] applies to the facts of this case. Existence of an agreement alone is not sufficient to get a decree. The Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances to see whether the agreement is genuine. Here, Ex.A-1 was disputed by the Defendant-1. He had taken I.A.No.1058 of 2007 to send the document to Forensic Expert for opinion. The Defendant-1 had 49/66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm ) S.A.No.470 & 540 of 2013 forwarded the documents but the same was returned seeking further documents containing admitted signature. It is the claim of the Defendant-1 that he was not a party to the sale agreement deed. The sale agreement deed is not a bona fide sale agreement deed. Under those circumstances, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, had decreed the suit considering the fact that the Plaintiff in the suit had examined attesting witness as P.W-2 and the scribe of the document as P.W-3. They had in their cross- examination admitted that they had not seen the Plaintiff transferring money to the Defendant-1. Therefore, the Appellate Court felt that the Plaintiff had not proved his case and dismissed the suit. The above reported ruling is applicable to this case. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is rejected and the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents is accepted in the light of this ruling and in the facts of the case before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, the decree of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, is erroneous as per this ruling. The finding of the learned Sub Judge, Perundurai is found well reasoned judgment in the light of the above ruling.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Motilal Jain vs Smt.Ramdasi Devi & Ors on 20 July, 2000

43. The ruling relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in (2006) 6 SCC 420 [Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi (Smt) and Others] is the case where major portion of the sale consideration that is 2/3rd was paid at the time of execution of contract and only a small amount has to be paid to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that willingness to pay the remaining amount is apparent. Here, the initial payment of Rs.60,000/- itself had not been proved by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that he paid to Rs.60,000/- as advance for the sale amount to one Ramamoorthi to whom the first Defendant owe repayment of loan of Rs.60,000/-. Whether 45/66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:14 pm ) S.A.No.470 & 540 of 2013 the amount was paid to Ramamoorthi had not been proved. P.W-2 attesting witness Anbazhagan and P.W-3 scribe Raja admitted that they have not seen the money being given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Under those circumstances, merely the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant will not help the case of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2004 to get a decree for specific performance. Hence, it is rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 188 - Full Document

Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. on 27 August, 2020

45. The ruling reported in (2020) 19 SCC 57 [Nazir Mohamed vs. J.Kamala and Others] cited by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2004 deals with Second Appeal arising out of specific performance of contract for sale and it deals with stages of the Second Appeal. When there is concurrent finding, substantial question of law does not arise. Here the substantial question of law had been framed by the then learned Judge already. In the above ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2004, this Court had issued guidelines for disposal of Second Appeal. That will not help the case of the Plaintiff in O.S.No. 240 of 2004. Hence, it is rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 128 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next