Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008
27. The plea of increase in prices being a ground for refusing specific
CS (OS) No. 990 of 2003 Page 18 of 24
performance has not been accepted by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Kaur
v. Piara Singh or P.D'Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu. For all of the above
reasons this Court answers Issue No.1 by holding that the parties were not
discharged of their respective obligations under the Agreement. The issue is
answered against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs have in the instant case
been able to prove by leading evidence and on the recitals of the Agreement,
that time was not the essence of the contract, the decision of the Supreme
Court in K.S.Vidyanadam v. Vairavan is of no assistance to the Defendant.
Shri Vishwa Nath Sharma vs Shyam Shanker Goela & Anr on 26 February, 2007
In Vishwa Nath Sharma v. Shyam Shankar Goela (2007) 3
SCALE 569 it was observed that although without the permission of the
Land and Development Officer the decree holder may not be in a position to
enforce the decree, "but it cannot be held that such a permission is a
condition precedent for passing a decree for specific performance."
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Subhash Chander Kathuria vs Umed Singh And Anr. on 24 January, 2006
The stand of the Defendant has been that time is the essence of the contract.
It is contended that under the agreement dated 18 th October 1994 the sale
deed was to be executed and possession to be handed over to the Plaintiffs
within three months of the Agreement. It is submitted that the said period of
three months could be reckoned either from 18th October 1994 itself or at the
highest the expiry of three months after 29th July 1995 when the further sum
of Rs. 1 lakh was received by the Defendant. It is submitted that on either of
these parameters, the agreement came to an end latest on 28 th October 1995.
It is accordingly submitted that beyond that date the Plaintiff cannot seek
CS (OS) No. 990 of 2003 Page 9 of 24
specific performance. Inasmuch as the Defendant has filed the suit only in
2003, long after the Defendant stood discharged from her obligation, the suit
is not maintainable as such. Reliance is placed by the Defendant on the
judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander Kathuria v. Umed Singh 127
(2006) DLT 292.
Section 28 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Panchanan Dhara & Ors vs Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead) Th. Lrs. & Anr on 12 May, 2006
On the aspect of limitation reference is made
to the judgment in Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity (2006) 5
SCC 340, Kuldip Gandotra v. Shailendra Nath Endlay AIR 2007 Delhi
page1 and Nisha Raj v. Pratap K. Kaula 151 (2008) DLT 402. Reference is
also made to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to contend
that time is not the essence of the contract in transactions of sale of
immovable property.