Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.55 seconds)
T.K.Jhambu vs Dhanasekaran on 9 December, 2016 cites

Ouseph Varghese vs Joseph Aley & Ors on 18 August, 1969

15. Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, taking me through the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and pointing out inconsistencies in their evidence would submit that the alleged oral agreement cannot be true. He would also rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ouseph Varghese vs. Joseph Aley and others reported in 1969 (2) SCC 539 and contend that the burden on the plaintiff whose suit for specific performance based on oral agreement is very heavy and unless it is brought about by cogent and substantial evidence that there was an agreement, capable of being specifically enforced, the Courts should be slow in granting the discretionary relief of specific performance on the basis of an oral sale agreement. The plaintiff in his evidence as PW1 has deposed that he had advised the defendant not to sell the property and he could consider borrowing monies according to his necessity. He would further state that the defendant however insisted the sale of the property. He would further claim that he discussed with his family members and decided to purchase the property, since he has been doing business there more than 15 to 20 years. It can be immediately pointed out that the said evidence is not in tune with the plaint allegations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

Mrs. Shoba Viswanatha vs D.P. Kingsley on 26 April, 1996

20. Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would invite my attention to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the judgement in Mrs. Shoba Viswanathan vs. D.P.Kingsley reported in CDJ 1996 MHC 579 would submit that the conduct of the plaintiff in seeking specific performance after the receipt of summons in the proceedings for eviction in RCOP.No.5 of 2002 should be taken into account. Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel would draw my attention to the following observations made in the Division Bench Judgement in paragraph 14, which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Kumari Anandan vs Dr. T. Balamukunda Rao (Died) And 3 Ors. on 30 April, 2002

 23. However viewed, the evidence offered by the plaintiff in support of his case is not credible and the plaintiff cannot merely on the strength of some contradictions in the defendants' case deprive the defendants of a valuable property in the heart of the city of Madras, which today is worth several millions. So far as the second defendant is concerned it is abundantly clear that he had, at no point of time, authorised his brother to sell his share to the plaintiff who has asserted that the first defendant had such authority has not produced any document to substantiate that assertion. If we are to examine the case of the plaintiff on the basis of standard of proof that is required as laid down in the above decisions, the necessary conclusion is that the plaintiff has not discharged his burden that lies on him to prove an oral agreement of sale. The evidence of both PW1 and PW2, apart from being interested is not credible and convincing. Though, according to the plaintiff, several other persons were present at the time of contract, PW2 deposed that he alone was present.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document
1