Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.61 seconds)Section 17 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 15 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
Therefore, the observation
made in para 26 of second Suraj Lamp case applies to the
facts of that particular case. However, in para 27 the
Supreme Court has observed as below : -
Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Diwali Lal And Ors. vs Sardar Baldev Singh And Anr. on 27 February, 1985
"9. The first submission of Mr. Prasad was
that the learned Subordinate Judge was not right
in holding that the defendants had failed to prove
the partition of 1969 and that the suit property
had fallen in the exclusive share of Bangali Lal.
In my opinion, it was wholly unnecessary for the
learned Subordinate Judge to go into these
questions as it was beyond the scope of a suit for
specific performance of contract. Apart from it, the
contract, if any, can be enforced only against a
person who is a party to it and not against a
person who is not a party to it; but the person
who is a party to the contract for sale is bound to
execute the sale deed if other terms are fulfilled
by the purchaser, even though the property in
question might not be belonging to him, as in that
case the purchaser would take the risk of
purchasing from him with his open eyes. It is
obvious that the person to whom the property
might legally belong cannot be bound by that
sale, but all the same the parties to the contract
would be bound by the contract to sell and the
purchaser under the contract can enforce the
vendor under the contract to perform his part of
the contract. In such circumstances, I leave the
question of title over the suit property open to be
decided in a properly framed suit."
1