Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Gomathinayagam Pillai And Ors vs Pallaniswami Nadar on 2 September, 1966
Insofar as the first question is concerned, after referring to Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar (supra), Govind Prasad v. Hari Dutt (supra), Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra, , and Smt. Indira Kaur v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor, , the Constitution Bench laid down as under.
Chand Rani vs Kamal Rani on 18 December, 1992
In Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani (supra) as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the facts therein are almost similar to the facts on hand. There were exchange of notices between vendor and vendee with regard to payment of second instalment of sale consideration. After receiving notice/notices, the vendee did not pay the amount. What is the inference to be drawn from those circumstances was observed by the Supreme Court as under.
Govind Prasad Chaturvedi vs Hari Dutt Shastri And Another on 28 January, 1977
Insofar as the first question is concerned, after referring to Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar (supra), Govind Prasad v. Hari Dutt (supra), Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra, , and Smt. Indira Kaur v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor, , the Constitution Bench laid down as under.
Hind Construction Contractors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 January, 1979
Insofar as the first question is concerned, after referring to Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar (supra), Govind Prasad v. Hari Dutt (supra), Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra, , and Smt. Indira Kaur v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor, , the Constitution Bench laid down as under.
Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor on 28 March, 1988
17. From an analysis of the above case law, it is clear that in the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are:
Jugraj Singh And Another vs Labh Singh And Others on 28 November, 1994
21. The relief of specific performance of contract is in the realm of equity and is purely within the discretion of the Court. That being the position, the person approaching the Court for specific enforcement of contract has to plead and prove that he/she has performed his/her part of contract and/or is always ready and willing to perform his/her part of the contract. This principle is entrenched in Section 16(c) of the Act. This has been interpreted by the Courts as requiring the plaintiff vendee in a case of sale of immovable property not only to prove that he is ready and willing to perform the contract, but must prove that as stipulated in the agreement of sale, vendee had always been ready and wiling to perform his/her part of contract. Mere pleadings and mere evidence of having money or other paraphernalia would not be sufficient compliance with Section 16(c) of the Act. A reference may be made to decision of Supreme Court in Jugraj Singh v. Raj Singh, AIR 1995 SC 945, wherein the principle was laid down as under. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of hearing of the suit need to be proved. The substance of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract.
Jugraj Singh & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Ors on 16 March, 1970
But, instead of paying the amount, P.W.1 informed that he cannot pay till twenty days as they could not procure money. Admittedly, the affairs of the plaintiff are taken care of by her husband P.W.1. The Evidence D.W.2, therefore show that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. As held by the Supreme Court in Jugraj Singh v. Raj Singh (supra) plaintiff seeking enforcement of contract of sale must always be ready and willing to perform her part of contract and mere proof of readiness at or about filing of the suit or after filing of the suit would not entitle such plaintiff for the relief.
Section 55 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Singh vs Natthu Singh on 25 November, 1991
8. After filing of the appeal, the suit schedule land was acquired in two separate land acquisition proceedings; in the first land acquisition Acs.0.10 of suit land was acquired in1996 and on the second occasion, balance of 0.21/2 land was acquired in the year 2000 and the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- lies in deposit with Land Acquisition Officer. Having regard to the subsequent event, the appellant has filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint seeking to add paragraph 17(a), 17(b), 17(c) and 17(d), as well as substitution of paragraph 20 as 20(a) and 20(b) (concerning prayer in the suit). This Court by order dt.8.7.2002 made in C.M.P.Nos.6719 of 2002 has allowed the amendments to be carried out. The plaintiff/appellant prays for a declaration that she is entitled to receive the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer on acquisition of land which is the subject matter of agreement of sale Ex.A.1. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act), would urge that the plaintiff is alone has right to claim compensation for the suit land which is now acquired. He placed reliance on Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, .