Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
International Contractors Ltd vs Prasanta Kumar Sur on 25 January, 1961
We do not consider it necessary to refer to this
decision as it does not carry the case of the
appellants any further. The ratio of the said
decision in no way runs counter to the said
position in law set out above."
M.M.S.Investments, Madurai And Ors vs V. Veerappan And Ors on 11 April, 2007
Shri Dharmadhikari learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff submits
that in cases of immoveable property time is never essence of
contract and once contract is broken there would never be question
of plaintiff being ready or otherwise. He submits that the plaintiff
was also therefore not bound to perform his part of the contract and
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:25 :::
36
make further payment. Shri Dharmadhikari Learned Senior
Counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in M. M. S.
Investments, Madurai And Others Vs. V. Veerppan And Others
(2007)9 Supreme Court Cases 660:
Azhar Sultana vs B. Rajamani & Ors on 17 February, 2009
Supreme Court says that after the conveyance is executed question
of readiness and willingness is irrelevant. Shri Bhangde learned
Senior Counsel appearing for defendants 6 and 7 submits that
question can also be raised by subsequent purchasers also. The
Supreme Court observed in a decision reported in Azhar Sultana
Vs. B. Rajamani & Ors. 2009(3) SCALE 159 as under:
Ram Awadh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. vs Achhaibar Dubey & Anr. on 1 February, 2000
"18. It is also a well settled principle
of law that not only the original vendor but
also a subsequent purchaser would be entitled
to raise a contention that the plaintiff was not
ready and willing to perform his part of
contract. [See Ram Awadh (Dead) by L.Rs. &
Ors. V. Achhaibar Dubey & Anr.(2000) 2 SCC
428 para 6].
Jawahar Lal Wadhwa And Anr. vs Haripada Chakraborty on 18 November, 1987
That does not turn the table either way. Ultimately as held in
Jawahar Lal Wadhwa's case the plaintiff must prove his readiness
and not merely complain of breach. Supreme Court has said that if
the plaintiff wants to simply complain of breach, he should be
prepared to have damages and not specific performance. For that
the other option is readiness to perform the contract. Simply saying
on oath that he is ready does not do. It must be established as a fact
that all that is required to be performed under contract before a
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:06:25 :::
46
right to seek performance accrues must be performed. To conclude
I would say that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is not paid though
alleged to be paid, (2) the amount required to be paid every month
is not paid and (3) there is no positive response to the defendants
notice Ex. 48 calling upon the plaintiff to have a sale deed. I find
that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract. In view of the fact that plaintiff raised a false plea of
payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- , the discretion could not be used in any
case in favour of the plaintiff.
Abdulla Ahmed vs Animendra Kissen Mitter on 14 March, 1950
The first decision is reported in Abdulla Ahmed Vs.
Animendra Kissen Mitter AIR 1950 Supreme Court 15. This decision
was cited for explaining the phrase finding a purchaser. I have
found that even if plaintiff had not introduced the defendants 4 and
5 that does not make any difference.
Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors on 30 November, 1973
The third decision is reported in Nagindas Ramdas Vs.
Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram And Others (1974)1 Supreme
Court Cases 242, which deals with the value of the admissions under
Section 58 of the Evidence Act. There is no doubt that admissions
as contemplated by Section 58 could be made foundation of the
rights of the parties and carry more value than evidentiary
admissions.