Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Kanigolla Lakshmana Rao vs Gudimetla Ratna Manikyamba And Anr. on 22 January, 2003 cites

Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad And Others on 9 February, 1951

13. Coming to the decisions relied upon by the Respondents, in the case of Firm Srinivas Ram v. Mahabir Prasad (supra), the Apex Court was considering as to the grant of alternative relief. The Apex Court held that ordinarily the Court cannot grant relief to the plaintiff on a case for which there was no foundation in the pleadings and which the other side was not called upon or had an opportunity to meet. But when the alternative case, which the plaintiff, could have made, was not only admitted by the defendant in his written statement but was expressly put forward as an answer to the claim which the plaintiff made in the suit, there would be nothing improper in giving the plaintiff a decree upon the case which the defendant himself makes. A demand of the plaintiff based on the defendan's own plea cannot possibly regarded with surprise by the latter and no question of adducing evidence on these facts would arise when they were expressly admitted by the defendant in his pleadings. In such circumstances, when no injustice can possibly result to the defendant and it may not be proper to drive the plaintiff to a separate suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 99 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Kuppala Obul Reddy vs Bonala Venpata Narayana Reddy (Dead) ... on 27 April, 1984

In the case of K. Obul Reddy v. B. Venkata Narayana Reddy (supra), the Apex Court was considering the issue as to whether the properties in dispute were the Joint family properties or not. In that case, the suit schedule properties were gifted by one Thimma Reddy to his senior wife Naramma under a Gift Deed dated 8-11-1930. The said Thimma Reddy had a son Yella Reddy and a daughter Nagamma through Naramma, his senior wife. Subsequently, Yella Reddy got married the daughter of Nagamma, who is the granddaughter of Thimma Reddy and Naramma. Naramma executed a Gift Deed on 10-10-1960 in respect of the properties, which she got under a gift, in favour of her granddaughter Venkata Lakshmamma, who was also his daughter-in-law, having got married to Yella Reddy. In the year 1961, there was an exchange of a part of the properties, which Venkata Lakshmamma got under the Gift with her husband and in exchange, she got a house. Subsequently, the said Venkata Lakshmamma sold the left over properties to the plaintiff while a sale deed was executed by her husband Yella Reddy in favour of the Defendant in respect of the said properties. Then the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration as well as for recovery. Though the trial Court decreed the suit, on appeal the appeal was allowed, where it was held that the properties are the Joint family properties of Thimma Reddy and he cannot execute a valid gift deed in favour of his wife and the said gift deed should be treated only as a conveyance in favour of his son Yella Reddy. Therefore, Naramma could not transfer a valid title under the gift deed executed by her in favour of her grand-daughter Venkata Lakshmamma.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 42 - A N Sen - Full Document

Lourdu Mari David And Ors vs Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy And Ors on 9 August, 1996

In the case of Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy (supra), the Apex Court was considering the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It was held that the relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is the discretion of the Court, but the discretion should not be refused arbitrarily. The discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law capable of correction by an appellate Court. It was also held that person claiming specific performance not coming to the Court with clean hands is not entitled for the equitable relief and a decree for specific performance could not be granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 191 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Bishambhar Nath Agrawal vs Kishan Chand And Ors. on 9 September, 1997

In the case of Bishambhar Nath Agarwal v. Kishan Chand (supra), a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was considering the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. In that case, the agreement for re-conveyance was on payment of the agreed amount by way of demand draft in favour of the Defendant and it was admitted by the plaintiff that he did not get any draft prepared in favour of the defendant, the manner of payment as enjoined in the compromise was not at all complied and the plaintiff could not be deemed to be ready to get the deed executed. Accordingly, the relief of specific performance of agreement was denied.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 19 - B K Sharma - Full Document

P. Purushotham Reddy And Another vs Pratap Steels Ltd. on 19 August, 1999

In the case of Sri P.Purushotham Reddy v. Pratap Steels Limited (supra), the Apex Court was considering the issue, under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. It was held that the Court can refuse specific performance when the plaintiffs conduct is blame worthy. In that case an agreement of sale was entered into between the parties where under it was agreed to sell and purchase the house property together with the land for a total consideration of Rs. 40.25 lakhs, A sum of Rs. 6 lakhs has been paid by the plaintiff by way of earnest money. It was further agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on 15-12-1987. The balance is payable at the time of registration. One of the terms relates to the obtaining of permissions required for execution of the registered deed and if it is necessary time has to be extended by mutual agreement of the parties for obtaining such permission. But, however, contrary to the terms of the agreement, the Court found that the plaintiff unilaterally extended the time. Further, a letter, Ex.A-5 alleged to have been sent by the plaintiff was doubted of its genuineness in view of the failure of the plaintiff to explain as to the absence of the dispatch number etc. In view of the conduct of the party, the Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - V B Rao - Full Document

Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956

In the case of Nagubai v. B.Shama Rao (supra), it was held that evidence let in on issues on which the parties actually went to trial should not made the foundation for decision of another and different issue, which was not present in the minds of the parties and on which they had no opportunity of adducing evidence. But that Rule has no application to a case where the parties go to trial with knowledge that a particular question is in issue, though no specific issue has been framed thereon, and adduce evidence relating thereto. Although no specific plea that the sale in favour of the Defendants was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens was raised in pleading of the plaintiff and no specific issue was directed to that question, the Defendants went to trial with full knowledge that the question of lis pendens was in issue, had ample opportunity to adduce their evidence thereon, and fully availed themselves of the same. In the circumstances, it was held that the absence of specific pleading on the question was a mere regularity, which resulted no prejudice to them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 565 - S J Imam - Full Document

Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987

14. If we examine the facts of the present case, in the light of the case-law referred to above, though the plaintiff did not plead the family settlement in terms of Ex.B-1, but approached the Court relying upon Ex.A-1 agreement of sale, but in written statement, the 1st Defendant clearly referred to the family settlement under Ex.B-1, under which the first Defendant had agreed to give up his rights in respect of the suit schedule property which originally belongs to the plaintiffs family, which was given to their daughter at the time of the marriage, who was married to the 1st Defendant. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that there is no pleading and issue and evidence, therefore, the Courts below are not justified in granting a decree for specific performance, basing on Ex.B-1, which was filed by the defendant, though that was not the case put forward by the plaintiff, in the light of the above referred decisions, is clearly devoid of merit. The 1st defendant himself has come up before the Court with the case that there was a settlement of disputes between the parties, in pursuance of which, Ex.B-1 was executed by him, scribed by the same author, who scribed Ex.A-1 agreement, and let in evidence through his witnesses stating that there was a settlement of the disputes between the parties. Accordingly, 1st Defendant executed Ex.A-1 agreement and the plaintiff and her husband and sons executed, Ex.B-1, in favour of the 1st defendant. If both the documents are read together, it is clear that there was a settlement between the parties under which the 1st defendant had agreed to give back the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs family. Under the above circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the 1st defendant, as to the want of pleadings or issues. The Defendant himself pleaded the settlement, which was based to decree the suit. Therefore, there is no prejudice to the Defendant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 449 - K N Singh - Full Document

Goppulal vs Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji ... on 12 March, 1969

In the case of Goppulal v. Dwarkadheeshji (supra), the Apex Court was considering an eviction proceedings under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act and the issue was as to the sub-letting. One of the grounds of eviction was the sub-letting by the tenant without the consent and knowledge of the landlord. The issue raised before the Apex Court was in the absence of any pleading or any issue on the question of sub-letting, the first two Courts were in error in holding that the two shops were sub-let with the permission of the landlord. The permission of the landlord for the sub-letting cannot be established from the mere fact that the landlord realised rent after the sub-letting, in the absence of proof that the landlord had then clear knowledge of the sub-lease. The Apex Court therefore, reversed the judgment of the High Court holding that it was in error in recording a finding that the shops were sub-let with the permission of the landlord.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 Next