REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PARMANAND SONI Appellant

V/S

Radhakrishna Dharmartha Private Trust Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

V. LAKSHMANAN V. B.R. MANGALAGIRI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHANNUGAM PILLAI V. ANNALAKSHMI [REFERRED TO]
K SIMRATHMULL VS. NANJALLNGINH GOWDER [REFERRED TO]
GOMATHINAYAGAM PILLAI VS. PALANISWAMI NADAR [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN COTTON MILLS VS. TATA AIR GRAFT LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI VS. HARI DUTT SHASTRI [REFERRED TO]
CHAND RANI VS. KAMAL RANI [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. N RAJU REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOUNESS ACHARYA SWAMI GANESH DASSJI VS. SITA RAM THAPAR [REFERRED TO]
LOURDU MARI DAVID VS. LOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
R K MOHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH VS. HAJEE C ABDUL WAHAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIWAS DEAD VS. BANO [REFERRED TO]
V PECHIMUTHU VS. GOWRAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
VEERAYEE AMMAL VS. SEENI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
P PURUSHOTTAM REDDY VS. PRATAP STEELS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DEOCHAND BHURA VS. PURUSHOTTAM DAS TANDON [REFERRED TO]
LEELADHAR YADAV VS. SIDDHARTHA HOUSING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal plaintiff calls in question judgment and decree dated 3.12.1997 passed by 9th ADJ, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 167 -A/95.

(2.) THE appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.11.1990. Alternative prayer was made for refund of earnest money forfeited by defendants No.1 to 3.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No.1 and 2 in their written statement contended that plaint does not disclose cause of action. Suit is barred by promissory estoppels. Plaintiff was tenant in house No.891. In the agreement six months time was fixed for execution of sale -deed failing which earnest money of Rs.20,000/ - shall stand forfeited, was specifically mentioned in the agreement. Plaintiff himself has written a letter dated 25.4.1991, plaintiff was not in possession in part performance of contract of sale, earnest money stood forfeited due to failure of plaintiff in getting sale -deed executed within the stipulated time. Plaintiff did not have balance of Rs.30,000/ - to fulfil the condition of agreement, plaintiff was left with no money owing to marriage of his daughter, thus he has concocted a false case of handing over the balance consideration to defendant No.3. Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, suit was liable to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

PARMANAND SONI Vs. RADHAKRISHNA DHARMARTHA PRIVATE TRUST

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address