P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved