Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Nothing Has To Be Proved After Vendor Admits Execution Of Agreement & Payment Of Consideration: P Ramasubbamma Vs V Vijaylakshmi & Ors

Azala Firoshi ,
  16 April 2022       Share Bookmark

Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :

Citation :
Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 2022

CASE TITLE:
P. Ramasubbamma VsV.Vijaylakshmi&ors.

DATE OF ORDER:
11th April, 2022

JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice M. R. Shah, J. and BV Nagrathana

PARTIES:
Appellant- P. Ramasubbamma
Respondent- V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that once the worker admitted the execution of agreement to sell & receipt of the advance sale consideration no further evidence or proof is required thereafter.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Specific Relief Act 1963.

BRIEF FACTS

  • The appellant entered into an agreement with respondent no.1 for the purchase of property of worth 29 lakhs & an advance of Rs. 20 lakh was also paid by the appellant.
  • The power of attorney was in the favour of defendant 2 and he was also present at the time of agreements. later the defendants approved the plaintiff for payment of 6 lakhs which plaintiff made 0n 23/03/2008.
  • Thereafter despite repeated required defendant 1 didn’t executed the sale dead in favour of the plaintiff & instead defraud her.
  • The trail court passed the decision of specific performance but the same was cancelled by the hon’ble High Court.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

  • The learned counsel for appellant submits that the HC had committed a grave error by quashing & setting aside the decree passed by the trial court. he further contends that the original owner admitted the execution of placed on the case of Lala Durga Prasad and others vs. Lala Deep Chand and others (1954) SCR 360.
  • No one appeared on the behalf of the respondents hence the court proceeded ex parte.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

The honourable Supreme Court held that the trial court rightly decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Also, the sale deeds executed by defendant No.3 &4 were not binding on the Defendant No.1 as well as plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The Learned Court was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was wrong and here set aside thereby succeeding the present appeal.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

 
"Loved reading this piece by Azala Firoshi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 1472




Comments





Latest Judgments


More »