Supreme Court: Marking a Document as an Exhibit Does Not Prove its Contents  ||  Supreme Court: Unpaid Consideration Alone Does Not Invalidate a Sale Deed  ||  Bombay HC: Questioning Other Varsities' Degrees Could Cause 'Anarchy and Chaos' in Education System  ||  Allahabad High Court: Regularization Claim Survives Employee’s Death Through Legal Heirs  ||  Allahabad HC: Advocates Failing AIBE Within 2 Years of Provisional Enrolment Can’t Continue Practice  ||  Bombay High Court Directs BCI to Scrutinise and Clear Pending Law College Affiliation Approvals  ||  J&K HC: Circulating WhatsApp Message on Local COVID Cases Does Not Attract Section 505 IPC  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training    

P. Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (11 Apr 2022)

Once execution of agreement to sell and payment of sale consideration is admitted by vendor, nothing further is required to be proved by vendee

MANU/SC/0449/2022

Civil

The Appellant herein original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal against impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by which the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court granting decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12th April, 2005.

Fact that original defendant No. 1 – vendor – original owner admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 12th April, 2005 and even admitted the receipt of substantial advance sale consideration, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12th April, 2005. Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment/receipt of advance substantial sale consideration was admitted by the vendor, thereafter nothing further was required to be proved by the plaintiff – vendee. Therefore, as such the learned Trial Court rightly decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell.

The High Court, was not required to go into the aspect of the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment/receipt of substantial advance sale consideration, once the vendor had specifically admitted the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of the advance sale consideration; thereafter no further evidence and/or proof was required.

The High Court has committed a grave error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by ignoring the vital facts of the case which are either admitted or proved in the instant case. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is restored. Appeal allowed.

Tags : SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE   AGREEMENT   EXECUTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved