Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.27 seconds)Banarsi And Ors vs Ram Phal on 17 February, 2003
39.As illustrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2003)9 SCC 606 [Banarsi and others vs. Ram Phal], the necessity to file the cross appeal or objection, arises only when the impugned decree is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondents and in other cases, namely when the decree is entirely in favour of the respondent, though an issue has been decided against the respondent or whether when the decree is entirely in favour of the respondents and all the issues are answered in favour of the respondent, but there is a finding against the respondents, there is no need to file cross appeal or objection and only it is an optional, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objection, adverse finding against the respondents can be challenged by the respondents in the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, I answered the point No.1 in favour of the 3rd respondent and held that even in the absence of cross objection or appeal, the 3rd respondent is entitled to challenge the findings given in Issue Nos.2 and 3 by the trial court that the appellants were ready and willing to perform their part of their contract.
Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
P. Retnaswamy vs A. Raja And Anr. on 4 September, 2001
60.In the judgment reported in 2008(3) CTC 1 [P.Retnaswamy vs. A.Raja and another], the onus of proving that he had no knowledge about the prior agreement of sale is on the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, we will have to see whether the 3rd defendant/3rd respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value and he was not having knowledge of the prior agreement of sale between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.
S. Nazeer Ahmed vs State Bank Of Mysore And Ors on 12 January, 2007
33.In the judgment reported in (2007)5 MLJ 768(SC) in the case of S.Nazeer Ahmed vs. State Bank of Mysore and others, the same principle was reiterated and held as follows:-
M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010
44.In the judgment reported in 2010(6)CTC 901 in the case of J.P.Builders & another vs. A.Ramadas Rao & another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the word 'readiness and willingness and held that 'readiness' implies financial capacity and 'willingness' implies the conduct of the plaintiff in claiming the relief of specif performance. So far the readiness is concerned, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs were having resources to mobilize the balance sale consideration and admittedly, they were employees of Indian Bank and they also informed that they would get loan from the Indian Bank Housing Finance Company and pay the balance amount and they also deposited the entire balance sale consideration, while filing the suit. Therefore, according me, the appellants proved their readiness and I concur with the findings of the trial court in that regard.
Arunachala Mudaliar vs Jayalakshmi Ammal And V.R. ... on 9 January, 2003
55.The 3rd defendant though a subsequent purchaser is also entitled to challenge the finding regarding the readiness and willingness, as held in the judgment reported in 2003(2)CTC 355 [Arunachala Mudaliar vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal and another] and also in the judgment reported in (2000)2 SCC 428 [Ram Awadh(dead) by Lrs vs. Achhaibar Dubey].
D.Kamalavathi vs P.Balasundaram (Deceased) on 31 January, 2011
58.Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011-1-LW 940 in the case of D.Kamalavathi vs. P.Balasundaram (deceased) and others, which reads as follows:-