Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)V. Muthusami (Dead) By Lrs vs Angammal & Ors on 26 February, 2002
As is borne out from the evidence, there was no agreement to sell
as the last date for completion of the sale was 29.5.2003, but the same was
extended to 25.5.2004, i.e., for a period of one year, which goes a long way
in proving that the appellant in fact had availed a loan. The Courts below
have not appreciated the fact that this is only land available with the
appellant and he has not purchased any land even after the alleged
agreement to sell. Consequently, judgments recorded by both the Courts
below are liable to be set aside. To fortify his contentions, he has relied
upon the observations rendered in re: Gurbax Singh v. Labhu Ram, 1995
R.S.A. No.3910 of 2007 (O&M) -5-
(3) Punjab Law Reporter 546; V. Muthusami (dead) by LRs., v.
Angammal and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1279 and Nirmala
Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd., and another, 2002(2) Recent
Civil Reports 765..
Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002
In re: Nirmala
Anand (supra), the Apex Court has ruled that "Ordinarily, plaintiff is not to
be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of phenomenal
increase of price during the pendency of litigation." In re V. Muthusami
(dead) by LRs. (supra), the subsequent purchaser- defendants were found
to be the bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration, without notice of
agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff. They were in possession of the suit
land by investing considerable sum for improvement. It was in these
premises held that the decree for specific relief of contract would involve
hardship on defendants as compared to plaintiff and the specific
performance of agreement cannot be enforced in favour of the plaintiff.
Thus, the alternative relief was granted, whereas in the case in hand, the
factual scenario is altogether different. As such, the appellant cannot derive
any mileage from the observations rendered in re: V. Muthusami (dead)
by LRs. (supra).
Gurbax Singh vs Labhu Ram on 4 July, 1995
Thus,
ostensibly, the facts of Gurbax Singh's case (supra) are also non-identical
with the present one. Consequently, in respect to questions No.1, 2 and 4, it
is concluded that the plaintiff- respondent is entitled for decree of specific
performance and the alternative relief of damages would not meet the ends
R.S.A. No.3910 of 2007 (O&M) -9-
of justice. The appellant had agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs.3
lacs per acre in the year 2002. As already noticed, he has neither pleaded
nor is there any evidence to spell out that the grant of specific performance
would operate as a comparative hardship to him. Thus, substantial question
No.3 is answered accordingly.
Ved Ram vs Har Kishan on 27 July, 2007
To controvert these submissions, Mr. Arvind Kashyap,
Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent canvassed at the
bar that both the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reason
in returning the findings in favour of the plaintiff- respondent and the same
call for no interference. He further puts that the stand taken up by the
defendant- appellant was of denial of agreement of sale, which has been
found to be false and that being so, in view of the observations made by this
Court in re: Ved Ram v. Har Kishan, 2008(1) Punjab Law Reporter 159,
the specific performance should not be denied.
1