Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.54 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mrs.Pappammal @ T.Pappa vs Mr.P.Ramasamy on 29 March, 2012
18. The facts of the reported ruling in the case of Mrs.Pappammal @
T.Pappa vs Mr.P.Ramasamy reported in 2012 (4) CTC 100, is a case in which
on the date of agreement for sale, the sale price for the property was fixed at
Rs.40,000/- on which date Rs.30,000/- was paid as advance and endorsement
was made for receiving Rs.30,000/-. For the balance of Rs.10,000/-, 5 years
period was granted. Moreover, no steps were taken for 5 years from the date of
agreement for sale. Therefore, it was held by the Court that the intention was
not for the sale of the property, rather it was given as a security.
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Vallithai vs Arulraj on 16 May, 2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2025 05:50:32 pm )
A.S.No.486 of 2020
'Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Sections 14 & 20 – When
relief of Specific Performance cannot be granted – Discretion of Court
– Agreement for Sale of land or money lending transaction – Document
purporting to be Agreement of Sale of land for total sale consideration
of Rs.40,000/-. Containing endorsement of payment of Rs.30,000/- as
advance and for balance of Rs.10,000/- time period of five years
granted – Moreover, no steps taken by Respondent for more than five
years from date of Agreement of Sale. To enforce Agreement of Sale,
even after Appellant refused to execute Sale Deed – From Evidence
Adduced that the Respondent was waiting for Appellant to repay loan
of Rs.30,000/- mentioned as advance in Agreement of Sale – Conduct of
Respondent, held, proves that he did not intend to enforce Agreement of
Sale, as if was given as security and not intended to be acted upon as
Agreement of Sale – Judgment and decree of Lower Courts, thus, set
aside – Appeal allowed.''
13.1. The learned Single Judge of this Court had also referred to the
reported ruling in the case of Vallithai and Others vs Arulraj reported in
(2007) 5 MLJ 222, wherein it has been held as follows:-
1