Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Nathulal vs Phoolchand on 16 October, 1969
13. Well settled is the legal proposition that, to prove his readiness and
willingness, a purchaser need not necessarily produce the money or carry it
with him or vouch a concluded scheme of finance. [See Nathulal vs.
8
Phoolchand1; and Sukhbir Singh & Ors. vs. Brij Pal Singh & Ors. 2]. It is
equally well settled that readiness and willingness is to be inferred from the
conduct of the parties.
Sukhbir Singh & Ors vs Brij Pal Singh & Ors on 10 May, 1996
13. Well settled is the legal proposition that, to prove his readiness and
willingness, a purchaser need not necessarily produce the money or carry it
with him or vouch a concluded scheme of finance. [See Nathulal vs.
8
Phoolchand1; and Sukhbir Singh & Ors. vs. Brij Pal Singh & Ors. 2]. It is
equally well settled that readiness and willingness is to be inferred from the
conduct of the parties.
His Holiness Acharya Swamiganesh ... vs Shri Sita Ram Thapar on 30 April, 1996
Bibi Jaibunisha vs Jagdish Pandit & Ors on 10 February, 1997
Babu Lal vs Hazari Lal Klshori Lal & Ors on 29 January, 1982
In this regard, we may refer to Babu Lal vs. Hazari Lal Kishori
Lal & Ors.5. It was held therein that, in appropriate cases of specific
performance of contracts of sale of immovable property, the Court can order
delivery of possession of the property even if it has not been specifically
asked for. It was observed that an order for delivery of possession without a
corresponding amendment in the plaint would only be a mere omission which
5
(1982) 1 SCC 525
11
would not be fatal to the relief of possession under Section 22 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, and more so, when the order is being made in furtherance of
the cause of justice. Therefore, the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to
amend their suit prayer, so as to seek the relief of delivery of possession,
cannot be held against them. At best, it was an omission on their part which
was not fatal.
Kanshi Ram vs Om Prakash Jawal & Ors on 15 April, 1996
18. It appears that the balance sale consideration of ₹9,00,000/- was
deposited before the Executing Court by the plaintiffs in February, 2012.
However, we are informed that there has been an astronomical rise in the
prices of lands in the vicinity of the suit land. Even if that be so, mere
escalation of land prices would not be a reason, by itself, to deny the
equitable relief of specific performance once sufficient grounds are made out
for granting such relief [See Kanshi Ram vs. Om Prakash Jawal & Ors. 6
and Gobind Ram vs. Gian Chand7].