REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HANUMANTAPPA Appellant

V/S

Jagadish Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PARAKUNNAN VEETILL JOSEPH'S SON MATHEW VS. NEDUMBARA KURUVILA 'S SON [REFERRED TO]
P.DAIVASIGAMANI V. S.SAMBANDAN [REFERRED TO]
U.N.KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS LRS. VS. A.M.KRISHNAMRTHY [REFERRED TO]
R C CHANDIOK VS. CHUNI LAL SABHARWAL [REFERRED TO]
DAMACHERLA ANJANEYULU VS. DAMCHERLA VENKATA SESHAIAH [REFERRED TO]
PARAK UNNAN VEETILL JOSEPHS SON MATHEW VS. NEDUMBARA KURUVILAS SON [REFERRED TO]
CHAND RANI VS. KAMAL RANI [REFERRED TO]
SARDARSINGH VS. KRISHNA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
N P THIRUGNANAM VS. R JAGAN MOHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOUNESS ACHARYA SWAMI GANESH DASSJI VS. SITA RAM THAPAR [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIRSINGH VS. BRIJ PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LOURDU MARI DAVID VS. LOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
LOURDU MARI DAVID VS. LOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
K S VIDYANADAM VS. VAIRAVAN [REFERRED TO]
K NARENDRA VS. RIVIERA APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SYED DASTAGIR VS. T R GOPALAKRISHNASETTY [REFERRED TO]
BALRAJ TANEJA VS. SUNIL MADAN [REFERRED TO]
A C ARULAPPAN VS. AHALYA NAIK [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA ANAND VS. ADVENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P DSOUZA VS. SHONDRILO NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
H P PYAREJAN VS. DASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
J P BUILDERS VS. A RAMADAS RAO [REFERRED TO]
ARDESHIR H MAMA VS. FLORA SASSOON [REFERRED TO]
K. PRAKASH VS. B.R. SAMPATH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
ZARINA SIDDIQUI VS. A RAMALINGAM ALIAS R AMARNATHAN [REFERRED TO]
JAYAKANTHAM & OTHERS VS. ABAYKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MRS. A. KANTHAMANI VS. MRS. NASREEN AHMED [REFERRED TO]
KALAWATI (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. VS. RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KUMAR VS. PREMLATA JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
C.S. VENKATESH VS. A.S.C. MURTHY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The regular first appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2012 passed in O.S.No.90/2009 by the Court of First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, thereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract is decreed in full directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving the balance sale consideration amount.

(2.) Rank of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are owners of suit schedule property and they had asked for financial assistance from the plaintiffs in the first week of March, 2007 and offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The defendants agreed to sell suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,25,000.00 and the plaintiffs have agreed to purchase the said property. Accordingly, agreement of sale dtd. 6/3/2007 was executed and the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 through pay order of State Bank of India, Hubli, for Rs.1,50,000.00 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 was paid through cheque of Bank of Maharastra.

Click here to view full judgment.

HANUMANTAPPA Vs. JAGADISH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address