REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

DHANRAJ Appellant

V/S

Salesh Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SILVEY V. ARUN VARGHESE [REFERRED TO]
NANDKISHORE LALBHAI MEHTA V. NEW ERA FABRICS [REFERRED TO]
ANIGLACE V. RAM LATHA [REFERRED TO]
S.B. NORONAL V. PREM KUNDI [REFERRED TO]
SHEODHARI RAI V. SURAJ PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TROJAN AND COMPANY VS. RM N N NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHANDRAMAUL [REFERRED TO]
R C CHANDIOK VS. CHUNI LAL SABHARWAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP GUPTA VS. BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. JUGAL KISHORE [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN SAO VS. DHARAMU CHAUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
CHAND RANI VS. KAMAL RANI [REFERRED TO]
BALA SHANKAR MAHA SHANKER BHATTJEE VS. CHARITY COMMISSIONER GUJARAT STATE [REFERRED TO]
JUGRAJ SINGH VS. LABH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
N P THIRUGNANAM VS. R JAGAN MOHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
KANSHI RAM VS. OM PRAKASH JAWAL [REFERRED TO]
LOURDU MARI DAVID VS. LOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
K S VIDYANADAM VS. VAIRAVAN [REFERRED TO]
VIDHYADHAR VS. MANKIKRAO [REFERRED TO]
SYED DASTAGIR VS. T R GOPALAKRISHNASETTY [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL JAIN VS. RAMDASI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA ANAND VS. ADVENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P DSOUZA VS. SHONDRILO NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI VS. INDUSIND BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
UMABAI VS. NILKANTH DHONDIBA CHAVAN [REFERRED TO]
ANIGLASE YOHANNAN VS. RAMLATHA [REFERRED TO]
FAQUIR CHAND VS. SUDESH KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
BAL KRISHNA VS. BHAGWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. BASANTI LAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMEDIA COOP BUILDING SOCIETY LTD VS. LAKSHMI S COOP BUILDING SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR FINANCE INVESTMENTS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BACHHAJ NAHAR VS. NILIMA MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
AZHAR SULTANA VS. B RAJAMANI [REFERRED TO]
MAN KAUR VS. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA [REFERRED TO]
J P BUILDERS VS. A RAMADAS RAO [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GOMI BAI VS. UMA RASTOGI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respective sole defendants are the appellants herein and the respective self -same sole plaintiffs in both the matters are the respondents. Both the suits in O.S. No.1960 of 1988 and 1959 of 1988 are filed by the self -same plaintiff Saleh against the respective defendants Dhanraj and Vijenderkumar Kedia. The trial Court on separate trial decreed both the suits for the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale respectively, to execute and register sale deeds on receiving balance sale consideration and to deliver possession and with costs.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of appeal common almost in both the appeals of the respective suits are that the decree and judgment respectively of the trial Court supra are contrary to law, unlawful and against probabilities of the case, perverse and misconceived against the canons of justice.

(3.) It is specifically contended by the defendant -appellant respectively supra that the trial Court ought to have seen that sale agreements Ex.A -21 and A -1 respectively on which the suits are based, are spurious, plaintiff P.W -1 admitted that he was not in India at the time of execution of the agreement, the trial Court should have seen that it was not the case of the plaintiff that the agreement was executed by his nominee on his behalf, that too when it bares signature of the plaintiff and therefrom trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit and by appreciating the fact that defendant respectively did not execute and sign the sale agreement, that the trial Judge should have sent the signatures of the defendant in dispute to an expert for examination and comparison and plaintiffs inaction in cause sending also substantiates the signature on the agreement respectively is not of the defendant respectively and it is a forged one respectively.

Click here to view full judgment.

DHANRAJ Vs. SALESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address