Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.90 seconds)Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
K.Praksh vs B.R.Sampath Kumar on 22 September, 2014
13. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the learned trial
Court ought to have granted the primary relief of specific
performance. Mere rise in prices by itself cannot be a ground for
refusing specific performance and cited K.Prakash v.
B.R.Sampath Kumar1. At paragraph No.18 their Lordships held
that subsequent rise in the price will not be treated as a hardship
entailing refusal of the decree for specific performance. Rise in
price is a normal change of circumstances and, therefore, on that
ground a decree for specific performance cannot be reversed.
After referring to the earlier binding precedent, their Lordships at
paragraph No.19 laid down the wisdom to be followed stating that
the Court may have to take notice of the increase in the prices
and consider the relative hardship and find out whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case Court shall exercise
discretion and impose any reasonable condition including
payment of additional amount by one party to the other either by
granting specific performance or refusing specific performance. It
may also direct the purchaser to pay additional amount to the
seller. That ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of
specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase
of price during the pendency of litigation. While balancing the
equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who
is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether a
party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the
hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing
specific performance. There may be other circumstances on
1
(2015) 1 SCC 597
13
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.754 of 2010
which parties may not have any control. The totality of the
circumstances is required to be seen.
P. Ramasubbamma vs V. Vijayalakshmi on 11 April, 2022
14. Learned counsel for appellant submits that when once it is
found by a Court that the subject matter agreement for sale is a
valid and enforceable contract and the receipt of a part of
advance sale consideration is found to be true, there remains
nothing on part of the plaintiff-purchaser to prove and the Courts
ought to grant the primary relief and placed reliance on
P.Ramasubbamma v. V.Vijayalakshmi2.
Sardar Harvinder Singh vs Sardar Balbir Singh Chadda 18 ... on 20 February, 2019
(2022) 7 SCC 384
3
(2021) 11 SCC 200
14
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.754 of 2010
That Ex.A.1 is an unregistered agreement for sale dated
13.11.2000. In State of Andhra Pradesh by Act 4 of 1999
with effect from 01.04.1999 Section 17 of the Registration
Act, 1908 was amended and now as per Section 17(g) of
the Act an agreement for sale of immovable property of
value Rs.100/- and upwards is a compulsorily registerable
document. Since Ex.A.1 is unregistered, the suit for
specific performance ought to have been dismissed by the
trial Court. The document which is compulsorily
registerable and is not registered is inadmissible in
evidence. For this purpose, learned counsel cited Sardar
Singh v. Smt. Krishna Devi4 and Suraj Lamp and
Industries (Private) Limited Through Director v. State of
Haryana5.
Saradamani Kandappan vs Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi, Mr. S. ... on 19 June, 2002
The learned counsel further argued that rise in prices has
to be taken notice of judicially and the trial Court did it
rightly and this Court need not interfere and cited
Mrs. Saradamani Kandappan v. Mrs. S.Rajalakshmi6,
P.Purushotham Reddy v. M/s. Pratap Steels Ltd.7 and
Sardar Amarjeet Singh v. Nandu Bai8.