Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)
Rathinavalli vs Sakthivel on 3 March, 2025 cites

Tejram vs Patirambhau on 3 April, 1997

22. The learned Counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tejram vs. Patirambhau reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2702. In the said case, the purchaser was a money lender who paid Rs.48,000/- out of Rs.50,000/- and the balance sum of Rs.2,000/- was to be paid. However, he kept quiet for 3 years without paying the balance sum and thereafter filed the suit. The Honourable Supreme Court held that it is one of the doubtful conducts of the Plaintiff who kept quiet for the period to lapse and therefore directed the Defendant therein to pay the advance amount and the relief of specific performance was declined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Bhagirath vs Ram Ratan on 14 July, 2017

In yet another decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellants in Bhagirath vs. Ram Ratan reported in (2017) 6 MLJ 237 (SC). In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the agreement was said to have been executed only for loan amount for treatment and the intention was not to sell the suit property for a consideration. Further, even after receipt of substantial consideration of the sale amount, the Plaintiff, who was a lawyer, waited for six years even for asking the son of the deceased to perform his part of the contract. It was therefore held that keeping silence for six years only 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 11:36:36 am ) SA No. 988 of 2013 indicates that the amount was paid only for treatment and not with an intention to sell the property.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1