LAL CHAND Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
LAWS(SC)-1997-2-97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 21,1997
LAL CHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
TAKKASEELA PEDDA SUBBA REDDI VS. PUJARI PADMAVATHAMMA [FOLLOWED]SHALIMAR CINEMA VS. BHASIN FILM CORPORATION [CITED]
AMBATI NARASAYYA VS. M SUBBA RAO [FOLLOWED]
MANGAL PRASAD VS. KRISHNA KUMARMAHESHWARI [CITED]
DESH BANDHU GUPTA VS. N L ANAND AND RAJINDER SINGH [APPLIED]
Cited Judgements :-
BANGARU KRISHNARJUNA AND 3 OTHERS VS. DASARI ATCHUTAMBA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-51] [REFERRED TO]SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR LRS VS. N K GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR LRS [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
ANTO NITTO VS. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1997-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
K HARNATHA RAO VS. PARVATHAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-1998-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
GANN DAS VS. PAULIN MORAES [LAWS(KER)-1997-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
BEAVER ESTATES PVT LTD VS. PHILIP THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2006-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALASWAMY KOUNDER VS. RAMASWAMY KOUNDER [LAWS(KER)-2006-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
GUDE SESHU KUMARI VS. S.V.APPALA SWAMY [LAWS(APH)-2024-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
M RAJAGOPAL REDDY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA ADB GOVINDARAPPET BRANCH [LAWS(APH)-2006-2-131] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI VS. IVTH A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL GURUNATH HUNSWADKAR VS. MADHUKAR GOVINDARAO HUNSWADKAR [LAWS(KAR)-1998-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
A RAMADAS RAO VS. J P BUILDERS [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-660] [RELIED ON]
GUNTUPALLI RAM SUBBULU VS. JETU SIVA SANKARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDALA VEERA V SATYANARAYANA VS. CHANDALA SESHA RATNAM AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2017-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
GLENCORE GRAIN ROTTERDAM B V VS. SHIVNATH RAI HARNARAIN I CO [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-266] [REFERRED TO]
A. KUPPUSAMY MUDALIAR VS. G. SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR AND TWO OTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1997-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
HARNATHA RAO VS. PARVATHAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-1998-6-76] [REFERRED TO]
D KONDAIAH VS. G RAMA SUBBAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1997-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
K. TARA BAI VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2021-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(2.)This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, made on November 9, 1995 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2680/89.
(3.)The admitted position is that the plaintiff- respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant to purchase 43 decimals of land in plot No. 389/2 situated in Umralla, District Varanasi for a sum of Rs. 6625/-. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid as earnest amount while the balance amount had already been paid in the form of loan. The respondent filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement, which relief ultimately was refused; but a decree for refund of the earnest money was granted. Since the amount was not paid, the respondent had brought the properties of the appellant, to the extent of one acre, 52-1/2 decimals to sale. The same came to be questioned by filing of an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, CPC which was dismissed by the Court below and upheld by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
(2.)This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, made on November 9, 1995 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2680/89.
(3.)The admitted position is that the plaintiff- respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant to purchase 43 decimals of land in plot No. 389/2 situated in Umralla, District Varanasi for a sum of Rs. 6625/-. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid as earnest amount while the balance amount had already been paid in the form of loan. The respondent filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement, which relief ultimately was refused; but a decree for refund of the earnest money was granted. Since the amount was not paid, the respondent had brought the properties of the appellant, to the extent of one acre, 52-1/2 decimals to sale. The same came to be questioned by filing of an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, CPC which was dismissed by the Court below and upheld by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.