Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.09 seconds)K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
If that be so, this Court would be perfectly justified in taking judicial note of the phenomenal increase in prices of the immovable properties, especially, when this Court is considering the question "whether a decree for specific performance should be granted in favour of the plaintiff?" for the first time, it being one of the relevant factor besides many others to be taken into consideration for denying the decree of specific performance as held by the Apex Court in K.S. Vidyanandam and Ors. v. Vairavan (supra) and three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the second case of Nirmala Anand (supra).
V. Pechimuthu vs Gowrammal on 1 August, 2001
In the recent judgment in the case of V. Pechimuthu v. Gowrammal, the Apex Court observed that where the Court is considering whether or not to grant a decree for specific performance for the first time, the rise in the price of the land agreed to be conveyed may be a relevant factor in denying the relief of specific performance.
M/S.P.R. Deb And Associates vs Sunanda Roy on 1 March, 1996
18. The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that it would be inequitable to specifically enforce the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He pressed into service Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of P. R. Deb and Associates v. Sunanda Roy, in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the defendant tried to support the findings of the trial Court and contended that following the well established principles laid down by the Apex Court, the trial Court was justified in refusing to grant equitable relief in favour of the plaintiff. He urged that the trial Court has taken into account the absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform its part of the contract. The plaintiff was not ready with the amount. The plaintiff did not deposit the amount with the Court to show its bona fides. The learned counsel for the defendant also brought to our notice that the trial Court has also taken into account escalation in prices of the property and contended that the plaintiff being the professional builder need not be granted equitable relief of specific performance of contract.
Sardar Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Another on 21 November, 1990
22. At the outset, we may observe that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act provides that jurisdiction to grant decree of specific performance is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the Court cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner but to be exercised on sound and reasonable considerations, guided by judicial principles, capable of corrections by the Court of appeal. The Apex Court in the case of Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi (Smt), reiterated the same principles.
Nathulal vs Phoolchand on 16 October, 1969
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff took us through the contents of the written statement and went to the extent of submitting that the plaintiff is prepared to accept the case sought to be made out by the defendant in the written statement. In this view of the matter, he submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the contract. So far as the disputed payment of Rs. 61,000/- is concerned, he submitted that if the evidence of the defendant herself is examined, it would be clear that amount of Rs. 61,000/- has been received by the defendant, as such adverse finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. He further urged that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to produce cash in the Court to establish availability of funds with it and to demonstrate readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. In his submission it was not necessary for the purchaser of the property to show that he did possess hard cash in hand. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nathulal v. Phoolchand, AIR 1970 SC 547 in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the appellant criticized the approach adopted by the trial Court and the findings recorded in this behalf and urged that the trial Court at no point of time directed the plaintiff to deposit the amount of consideration. Had there been any such direction, the plaintiff would have tendered or deposited amount of consideration which was agreed between the parties. He further submitted that, had the defendant any doubt about financial capacity of the plaintiff, the defendant ought to have moved an application to the trial Court calling upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance consideration. In that event, the plaintiff would have deposited the amount of consideration.
Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000
Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand, , wherein, in order to mitigate the hardship resulting to the vendor due to lapse of time and escalation of prices of the urban properties, further compensatory amount was ordered to be paid, even though in that case the trial Court had granted a decree for specific performance for consideration mentioned in the document and the balance of consideration was also deposited by the purchaser in full therein.
Smt. Mayawanti vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi on 6 April, 1990
The agreement in question provides that the plaintiff will make construction in the open area and provide accommodation to the defendant for her stay so as to enable the defendant to vacate the portion of the bungalow occupied by her and to hand over the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's witness in his deposition admitted this sequence of reciprocal obligations and stated that it was only after taking these steps the sale deed was to be executed. This entire transaction was to be completed within period of three years. It is the plaintiff who is seeking specific performance of the contract. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, , the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the parties are at ad-idem. If the parties are not at ad-idem then there is no agreement at all. The pleading of the parties, if examined in the light of these terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, it will be clear that the parties are not at ad-idem so far as terms of the agreement are concerned. The plaintiff at this appellate stage of the litigation, in order to get over that hurdle, wanted to rely upon certain averments made by the defendant in the written statement. Needless to mention that written statement or for that purpose any document cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read in toto. The learned counsel for the plaintiff is thus not right in reading some of the statements in isolation so as to contend that some of the averments made in the written statement amount to admission on the part of the defendant. At any rate, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to travel beyond the scope of its own pleadings. The plaintiff is bound by its own pleadings and, if that be so, it must fail or succeed on its own pleadings. The very submission advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff goes to show that the parties were not ad-idem, as such contract cannot be said to be enforceable in the eye of law.
Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002
If that be so, this Court would be perfectly justified in taking judicial note of the phenomenal increase in prices of the immovable properties, especially, when this Court is considering the question "whether a decree for specific performance should be granted in favour of the plaintiff?" for the first time, it being one of the relevant factor besides many others to be taken into consideration for denying the decree of specific performance as held by the Apex Court in K.S. Vidyanandam and Ors. v. Vairavan (supra) and three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the second case of Nirmala Anand (supra).