UTTAM CHAND Vs. RADHABAI
LAWS(MPH)-1990-11-17
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on November 26,1990

UTTAM CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
RADHABAI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRES' CASE [REFERRED TO]
SCRUTTONS V. MIDLAND SILICENES [REFERRED TO]
DEB NARAYAN V. RAM SADHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHELLING V. JOHN G. SNELLING [REFERRED TO]
BESWICK V. BESWICK [REFERRED TO]
SHANTABAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSAM TRIPURA AND MANIPUR VS. PANBARI TEA COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MANGALA KUNHIMINA UMMA VS. PUTHLYAVEETTIL PARU AMMA [REFERRED TO]
KHIROD BEHARI DUTT VS. MAN GOBINDA [REFERRED TO]
ALICE MARIE VANDEPITTE VS. PREFERRED ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

YOGAMBIKA VS. NARSINGH [LAWS(KAR)-1992-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
NARRA MADHAVA RAO VS. B SADASIVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-37] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed to enforce specific performance of agreement for sale of his house in Basoda town.
(2.)In the plaint, which giving description of the house the alleged terms of the agreement were also given; that was stated to be executed and registered on 24-7-1976 and was proved in the case as Ex. P-1. The plaint case is that Rs. 11,500/- had already been paid under the agreement to the defendant and the remaining Rs. 500/- had to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed, within 24-7-1977, when possession of the suit house had to be delivered by to the plaintiff by the defendant. A registered notice dated 25-7-1977 was served on the defendant as Sale-deed was not executed by him within the period stipulated. The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount but the defendant refused to execute the sale deed and to deliver possession of the suit house to her.
(3.)In his written statement the defendant denied those several averments and took the special plea that Rs. 11,500/- was due payable against loan taken by him and the document was executed as a collateral security. It was also agreed in presence of witnesses, before execution of the document, that the loan shall be repaid when demanded. Plaintiff refused to accept repayment of the loan though that was offered to her as she was motivated by an ulterior object, to grab the house. Defendant was ready to repay the loan. He also asserted that plaintiff's husband, Raghunath Rao, was formerly in Government service and he was doing money-lending business through, and in the name of, his wife, Radhabai.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.