Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Mrs.G.Visalakshi … vs Mrs.V.Devika on 17 April, 2024 cites

N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995

12. Per contra, Mr.G.Vijayanand for M/s.G.Vijayanand 16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.283 of 2014 Associates, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would contend that sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was only a hand loan and not towards the sale consideration. The possession was handed over to the defendants only in lieu of the interest payable towards the loan. He would further submit that on 23.04.2001, Ramalingam Achari was not even the owner of the property and therefore, he did not have locus standii to execute the agreement of sale and that being the case, no right would flow under the agreement to the plaintiff. He would submit that the plaintiff has not proved readiness and willingness. Though the sale deed had been executed in favour of Ramalingam Achari in June 2007, the suit for specific performance has been filed only in the year 2009, i.e nearly after 2 years. It would clearly prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to proceed with the agreement. The learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 5 SCC 115 [N.P.Thirugnanam (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and Others] and (2005) 7 SCC 534 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.283 of 2014 [Aniglase Yohannan Vs Ramlatha and Others]. He would further submit that the signatures of the parties had been obtained in blank papers when the loan was given. He would argue that the amount was received by the father and given to them. He would also submit that the father had repaid the said loan. Therefore, he would submit that the trial Court has rightly held against the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 486 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha And Ors on 23 September, 2005

12. Per contra, Mr.G.Vijayanand for M/s.G.Vijayanand 16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.283 of 2014 Associates, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would contend that sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was only a hand loan and not towards the sale consideration. The possession was handed over to the defendants only in lieu of the interest payable towards the loan. He would further submit that on 23.04.2001, Ramalingam Achari was not even the owner of the property and therefore, he did not have locus standii to execute the agreement of sale and that being the case, no right would flow under the agreement to the plaintiff. He would submit that the plaintiff has not proved readiness and willingness. Though the sale deed had been executed in favour of Ramalingam Achari in June 2007, the suit for specific performance has been filed only in the year 2009, i.e nearly after 2 years. It would clearly prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to proceed with the agreement. The learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 5 SCC 115 [N.P.Thirugnanam (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and Others] and (2005) 7 SCC 534 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.283 of 2014 [Aniglase Yohannan Vs Ramlatha and Others]. He would further submit that the signatures of the parties had been obtained in blank papers when the loan was given. He would argue that the amount was received by the father and given to them. He would also submit that the father had repaid the said loan. Therefore, he would submit that the trial Court has rightly held against the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 170 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1