Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)P. Gopirathnam And 4 Others vs Ferrodous Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep. By ... on 3 March, 1999
Distinguishing the Full Bench decision of this Court in P. Gopirathinam &
others Vs Ferrodous Estate (P) Ltd., [1999(II) CTC 181 (FB)], the Court
held that the scheme of the ULC Act does not impose a total bar on transfer
of lands and that the parties before it did not attempt to violate it, and even as
the request for obtaining exemption was pending the ULC Act itself came to be
repealed as a result of which the whole proceedings stood abated.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Raptakos Brett And Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Modi Business Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. on 10 March, 2006
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
11.3 The Raptamkos Brett case [2006 (2) CTC 799] which the appellants
rely on, was set to an entirely different facts-situation. That was a case where
the parties have consciously entered into an oral agreement of sale of the
lands in excess of ceiling limit. An attempt appears to have been made to
seek exemption and the Government Order that came to be passed kept the
lands in question outside the ULC Act. The plaintiff/the purchaser under the
agreement would claim that he was given possession of the property in
question and would first institute a suit for injunction, and then would file a
suit for specific performance. In the specific performance suit, the defendant
had taken out an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground the suit
was laid in violation of Order II Rule 2 CPC. This application was allowed.
While reasoning its conclusion, the learned single Judge of this Court had
incidentally touched upon the effect of the Repeal Act on the agreement said
to have been made between the parties, and has held that the agreement was
void on the date when it was made, no matter that the ULC Act was
subsequently repealed.
Faquir Chand And Anr vs Sudesh Kumari on 21 September, 2006
16. Having stated thus, in an agreement executed in 1978, and in a suit that
laid only in 1985, whose sustainability itself was in a state of oscillation till the
ULC Act was repealed Vide TN Act 20/1999, to pin down the performance of
the contract to the consideration agreed under a four decade old Agreement
appears inequitable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zarina Siddique Vs.
A.Ramalingam [(2015) 1 SCC 705]; Laxman Tatyaba Kankate
Vs.Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak [(2010) 7 SCC 717]; Viswanath
Sharma Vs. Shyam Shadkar Goela [(2007) 10 SCC 595]; Faquir Chaad
Vs. Sudesh Kumari [(2006) 12 SCC 146]; S.Santha Vs. T.Sadasivam and
5 others [(2010) 3 MLJ 1189] has shown the way to balance any inequity
that might arise due to the inadequacy of the consideration in the face of delay
and change of circumstances by directing the purchasers under the agreement
to pay additional consideration at the rate that it fixed. During the hearing
the plaintiffs have offered to pay an additional Rs.400/- per sq.feet over and
above the sale consideration agreed upon in Ext.A-1. Applying this to 117
grounds and 0352 sq.feet, or 2,81,152 sq.feet, the total additional amount
payable is (2,81,152 sq.ft X Rs.400) Rs. 11,24,60,800/- and this would
partake the character of balance sale consideration. A memo dated 28-11-
2018 too has been filed in the Court by the plaintiffs/respondents and the
same is recorded. In arriving at this amount this court is conscious of the fact
that roads have been formed within the property, which as per the plaintiffs
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
Memo covers an extent of 67,716 sq.ft but this Court has decided to include
this to the total area, as the formation of roads is internal to the affairs of the
plaintiffs – in the manner they choose to enjoy the property The plaintiffs
shall deposit the additional amount now determined before the trial Court
within a period of six months from today.
S. Santha Rajagopal vs T. Sadasivam on 21 December, 2009
16. Having stated thus, in an agreement executed in 1978, and in a suit that
laid only in 1985, whose sustainability itself was in a state of oscillation till the
ULC Act was repealed Vide TN Act 20/1999, to pin down the performance of
the contract to the consideration agreed under a four decade old Agreement
appears inequitable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zarina Siddique Vs.
A.Ramalingam [(2015) 1 SCC 705]; Laxman Tatyaba Kankate
Vs.Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak [(2010) 7 SCC 717]; Viswanath
Sharma Vs. Shyam Shadkar Goela [(2007) 10 SCC 595]; Faquir Chaad
Vs. Sudesh Kumari [(2006) 12 SCC 146]; S.Santha Vs. T.Sadasivam and
5 others [(2010) 3 MLJ 1189] has shown the way to balance any inequity
that might arise due to the inadequacy of the consideration in the face of delay
and change of circumstances by directing the purchasers under the agreement
to pay additional consideration at the rate that it fixed. During the hearing
the plaintiffs have offered to pay an additional Rs.400/- per sq.feet over and
above the sale consideration agreed upon in Ext.A-1. Applying this to 117
grounds and 0352 sq.feet, or 2,81,152 sq.feet, the total additional amount
payable is (2,81,152 sq.ft X Rs.400) Rs. 11,24,60,800/- and this would
partake the character of balance sale consideration. A memo dated 28-11-
2018 too has been filed in the Court by the plaintiffs/respondents and the
same is recorded. In arriving at this amount this court is conscious of the fact
that roads have been formed within the property, which as per the plaintiffs
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
Memo covers an extent of 67,716 sq.ft but this Court has decided to include
this to the total area, as the formation of roads is internal to the affairs of the
plaintiffs – in the manner they choose to enjoy the property The plaintiffs
shall deposit the additional amount now determined before the trial Court
within a period of six months from today.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Zarina Siddiqui vs A.Ramalingam @ R.Amarnathan on 29 October, 2014
16. Having stated thus, in an agreement executed in 1978, and in a suit that
laid only in 1985, whose sustainability itself was in a state of oscillation till the
ULC Act was repealed Vide TN Act 20/1999, to pin down the performance of
the contract to the consideration agreed under a four decade old Agreement
appears inequitable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zarina Siddique Vs.
A.Ramalingam [(2015) 1 SCC 705]; Laxman Tatyaba Kankate
Vs.Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak [(2010) 7 SCC 717]; Viswanath
Sharma Vs. Shyam Shadkar Goela [(2007) 10 SCC 595]; Faquir Chaad
Vs. Sudesh Kumari [(2006) 12 SCC 146]; S.Santha Vs. T.Sadasivam and
5 others [(2010) 3 MLJ 1189] has shown the way to balance any inequity
that might arise due to the inadequacy of the consideration in the face of delay
and change of circumstances by directing the purchasers under the agreement
to pay additional consideration at the rate that it fixed. During the hearing
the plaintiffs have offered to pay an additional Rs.400/- per sq.feet over and
above the sale consideration agreed upon in Ext.A-1. Applying this to 117
grounds and 0352 sq.feet, or 2,81,152 sq.feet, the total additional amount
payable is (2,81,152 sq.ft X Rs.400) Rs. 11,24,60,800/- and this would
partake the character of balance sale consideration. A memo dated 28-11-
2018 too has been filed in the Court by the plaintiffs/respondents and the
same is recorded. In arriving at this amount this court is conscious of the fact
that roads have been formed within the property, which as per the plaintiffs
http://www.judis.nic.in
20
Memo covers an extent of 67,716 sq.ft but this Court has decided to include
this to the total area, as the formation of roads is internal to the affairs of the
plaintiffs – in the manner they choose to enjoy the property The plaintiffs
shall deposit the additional amount now determined before the trial Court
within a period of six months from today.
N. Shanmugham vs Rathinam @ Rathinavelayudham (Died) on 4 April, 2003
12.2 The judgment in this suit was delivered by the trial Court (to which the
suit was later transferred due to amendment to the pecuniary jurisdiction) on
16-10-2006. Now, there is no case for the defendants/appellant that
subsequent to the remand made by Ext.B-3, and before the repeal of the ULC
Act in 1999, the Competent Authority had rejected the plaintiff's request for
exemption. P.W.1 was examined in chief on 15-04-2004, and was cross
examined on 07-12-2004 and thereafter on 14-12-2004, 21-07-2006 and
finally on 24-08-2006. Nowhere have the defendants even suggested to
P.W.1 that the first plaintiff's request to obtain exemption of the suit property
under Sec.21 of Act had been rejected before the repeal of the Act. Nor,
D.W.1, the only witness to have been examined for the defendants speaks to
this fact. This in other words would mean that both the parties proceed on the
premise that the request for exemption sought was pending. And, as in
Shanmugham's case under the Repealing Act, the very request was abated.
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
12.3 Given the fact that Ext.A-1 does not stipulate the time within which the
exemption under Sec.21 of the ULC Act must be obtained, and given the fact
that during the pendency of the suit the exemption earlier granted under ExtA-
15 dated 06-04-1985, (which provided the critical fact necessary to constitute
the cause of action for the suit, and but for which the suit could not have been
laid except as one instituted prematurely) had been cancelled Vide ExtB-3 in
1988, the defendant had an opportunity to non suit the plaintiff by resorting
to Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, but the suit was allowed to stay alive. One
pendete lite development was thus allowed to pass without any consequence
on the suit. Then came the T.N.Act 20/1999 repealing the ULC Act. The
situation is that a suit which was instituted on the premise that Ext.A-15 was
valid, but lost its foundation midway through its pendency, has again acquired
legitimacy for its continued stay in the docket due to subsequent statutory
developments (which T.N.Act 20/2009 signifies). This Courts cannot be
oblivious to the legislative developments and change of law, and administer
the same when the conditions warranting its operation itself has been
legislatively changed.