Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.06 seconds)
Abdul Jabbar S/O Abdul Gaffar Sheikh ... vs Abdul Khan S/O Aziz Khan And Ors. on 21 November, 2007
cites
Section 31 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt. Nirmala Bala Dasi And Anr. vs Sudarsan Jana And Ors. on 4 June, 1980
10. The judgments reported in Jagdeo Singh and Ors. v. Bisambhar and Ors. (supra) and Smt. Nirmala Bala Dasi and Anr. v. Sudarsan Jana and Ors. (supra) permit one or more co-contractors to file a suit seeking specific performance. There cannot be any debate over this proposition. The present respondents 1 and 2 were and are co-contractors with deceased appellant No. 1 and his wife insofar as the fresh agreement dated 20-12-1981 is concerned and accordingly they filed suit for specific performance, after realising that the vendors have not abided by the said agreement and have executed sale deed dated 19-11-1982 in favour of deceased-appellant No. 1 and his wife. I, therefore, find that the suit for specific performance filed by the present respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to be improper. In view of provisions of either Sections 15 or Section 31, on the basis of sale deed dated 19-11-1982 obtained by the deceased appellant No. 1 and his wife, they cannot contend that they have established title and interest in immovable property. It is therefore apparent that the rights of present appellants to seek specific performance of agreement under Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act flowing from agreement dated 5-12-1980 was extinguished because of subsequent agreement and in any case, the sale deed in their favour was voidable. I, therefore, find that in view of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, the present respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to seek relief of declaration of cancellation of the said sale deed.
Ram Baran Prasad vs Ram Mohit Hazra And Ors. on 28 February, 1961
He relied on the decision of the Apex Court at , Ram Baram Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazara and Ors. for this purpose. Pointing out Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, he contends that said respondents could not have sought the relief of cancellation of sale deed and he contends that respondents could not be said to be the persons aggrieved by the said sale deed and the sale deed could not be presumed to be void. He contends that as no rights were conferred upon the respondents 1 and 2 by agreement of sale in view of Section 31, the suit itself could not have been entertained. He pointed that the trial Court has also passed a decree for partition and in fact such a decree for partition could not have been granted to respondents 1 and 2. He contends that the appellants agreed to purchase one acre of undivided and joint portion and therefore, granting of decree for partition was beyond the jurisdiction of Court.
A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Dead) And Ors. vs P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid And Ors. on 3 May, 2000
He has relied upon the Apex Court Judgment at 2001(3) ALL MR 770, A. Abdul Rashid Khan (dead) and Ors. v. P.A.K.A. Shahul Humid and Ors. to substantiate his contentions. He further contends that though respondent No. 13-Nago has expired, the LRs of original Vendor-Mukundrao i.e. mother of Nago and his brother and sisters are already on record. He further contends that in spite of service of notice in suit and in appeal, Nago had not appeared and as such, the request seeking exemption from bringing his LRs on record need to be allowed.
Section 30 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1