9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000/- and on the date of agreement, a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. ii) The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters of the 1 st defendant and as per the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the execution of the sale deed is to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff after getting the permission of the competent Court insofar as the share of the minor defendants 2 and 3 are concerned. iii) The husband of the 1st defendant, Jayaraman, is no more. He was the absolute owner of the suit property and died intestate on 03.08.1991. On his death, the defendants succeeded to the suit property, being the Class I heirs as contemplated under the Hindu Succession Act. iv) The 1st defendant, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of institution of the suit, they were minors. Though they admit the relationship, they contend that they are not parties to the sale agreement and the execution of sale agreement is void. viii) The Trial Court, after framing six issues, held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance and dismissed the suit with costs. ix) Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. x) The Division Bench of the High Court even though found every issue in favour of the plaintiff, on equitable grounds, denied her the relief of specific performance and directed refund of the advance amount with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of plaint till the date of realizati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the written statements and the judgments of both the Trial Court as well as of the High Court and the grounds taken in the Special Leave Petition. 8) After carefully perusing the records of the case and having regard to the fact that the appellant acted promptly has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, we are of the considered opinion that the delay per se cannot be a sole ground for refusal to grant a decree of specific performance of the contract. 9) In our view, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the suit even though it found every issue in favour of the appellant and held that execution of the documents has been proved. Once the High Court had come to a definite conclusion that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
