Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Sinnakaruppa Gounder vs M. Karuppuswami Gounder And Anr. on 3 August, 1964
"In our view, generally speaking, the benefits
of a contract of repurchase must be
assignable, unless the terms of the contract
are such as to show that the right of
repurchase
896
is personal to the vendor. In the latter case
it will be for the person who pleads that the
contract is not enforceable, to show that the
intention of the parties thereto was that it
was to be enforced only by the persons named
therein and not by the assignee.'
In our view, the above statement of law appears to be
correct. We have already held above that under the terms
and conditions laid down in Exhibits A.3 and A.4, the right
of repurchase was not given as personal to Razia Begum and
Abdul Salam and they were entitled to assign such right and
the plaintiff having got such right under Exhibits A.10 and
A.11 was entitled to enforce such contract by filing a suit
for specific performance. The plaintiff in the present case
also falls within the meaning of representative in interest
as contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 15 of the Act.
On such assignment, the plaintiff-appellant acquired a valid
titled to claim specific performance.
In the result, we allow these appeals with costs and set
aside the Judgment of the High Court and restore and
Judgments and decrees passed by the trial court.
1