Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)
P.Valliammal vs G.Saraswathi on 1 November, 2019 cites

Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah vs Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy on 5 August, 1999

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant painstakingly took this Court to convince it that Ext.A-3 only constituted an agreement of sale. He also elaborated the background that supported it. In particular, he laid emphasis on the building approval plan, the receipts for installment-dues paid to TNHB etc., He further argued that even where a suit is laid on an unregistered sale deed, a suit for specific performance would lie for registering the said document in terms of the ratio in Kalavakurti Venkata Subbiah Vs Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy [(1999)7 SCC 114].
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 34 - A P Misra - Full Document

S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010

13. If closely read each of these clauses either individually or collectively, the document fits in with the character of a sale deed. And what was promised to be done on TNHB executing the sale deed in favour of the vendor was that the vendor would both execute such documents necessary to confirm the sale, and also do such acts for registering the sale. Both these clauses in the document cannot be read disjunctively for if so read, they may contradict each other. If read collectively it means, that the sale deed is validly executed, the act required for registering it deferred till TNHB executed the sale deed in favour of the vendor, and that the vendor would also execute documents confirming the sale. This Court therefore, holds that both the courts have decided this issue correctly. Here, one point that requires to be clarified is that in Kaladevi's case [(2010)5 SCC 401] which the plaintiff/appellant has cited, the facts are slightly different. The pleading in that case was to the effect that there was initially an oral agreement of sale, which was followed by an unregistered sale deed. Since the 14/17 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.No.231 of 2010 unregistered sale deed could not be received in evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the original agreement could be relied on. Here no oral agreement as preceding Ext.A-3 was pleaded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 198 - R M Lodha - Full Document

K. Santhakumari vs K. Suseela Devi on 24 November, 1960

10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 (who chose to defend the suit for the benefit of respondents 4 and 5, who are the present owners of the property) that Ext.A-3 possessed all the characteristics of a sale deed, and inasmuch as the same is insufficiently stamped, and also unregistered, the same cannot be looked into. Reliance was placed on the ratio in K. Santhakumari Vs K.Suseela Devi [AIR 1961 AP 24], in which the Andra Pradesh High Court had relied on the authority of the Privy council in Skinner Vs Skinner [AIR 1929 PC 269]. At any rate, it does not constitute a sale agreement.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

James R.R. Skinner vs Robert Hercules Skinner on 16 July, 1929

10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 (who chose to defend the suit for the benefit of respondents 4 and 5, who are the present owners of the property) that Ext.A-3 possessed all the characteristics of a sale deed, and inasmuch as the same is insufficiently stamped, and also unregistered, the same cannot be looked into. Reliance was placed on the ratio in K. Santhakumari Vs K.Suseela Devi [AIR 1961 AP 24], in which the Andra Pradesh High Court had relied on the authority of the Privy council in Skinner Vs Skinner [AIR 1929 PC 269]. At any rate, it does not constitute a sale agreement.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 42 - Full Document
1   2 Next