Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.40 seconds)
Virendra Singh vs Govind Prasad & Ors. on 21 May, 2024 cites

K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997

12. From perusal of the evidence, it is evident that plaintiffs were required to pay balance consideration initially by 01/12/1988 and later it was extended up to 30/04/1990, but the suit was filed on 22/02/1993 i.e. more than 02 years and 10 months. The original agreement was alleged to have been executed on 05/08/1988 and if calculated from aforesaid date then suit was filed after a lapse of 05 years. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of K. S. Vidhyanadam Vs. Vairavan reported in 1997 (3) SCC 1 has held that "even though time is not the essence of contract of sale of immovable property and suit can be filed within a period of 3 years provided under Article 54 of Limitation Act, but it should be performed within a reasonable time having regard to the terms of contract prescribing a time limit and nature of the property."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 494 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013

26. So far as the status of appellant is concerned, undoubtedly, the appellant have purchased the suit property during the pendency of the litigation between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the principle of lis pendens provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2389, the transfer of the suit land in favour of the appellant pendente lite is effective in transferring title to the appellant but such title shall remain subservient to the rights of the plaintiff in the suit and subject to any direction, which the Court may eventually pass therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 385 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1