Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sale

There are two types of relief after the special execution judgment, which any contracting party can use in a timely manner – referring to the facts, the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on June 2, 1999. The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement. In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact). The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside. The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value. The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument.

Section 10 of the Act, as amended at this time,[4] emphasizes that a particular benefit can normally only be granted and denied in circumstances such as they are exposed to sections 11, 14 and 16 of the Act. It is not uncommon for persons claiming the title of one of the contracting parties to become a necessary party in the course of a legal action or even before a party creates third-party rights. Those allegedly involved in legal action depend on the facts of a case, according to Regulation I, Rule 10, of the 1908 Civil Procedure Code and Section 19[24] of the Act, which provides an indication. The Supreme Court in Kasturi,[25] concisely defined the principles to be considered.

Comments are closed.
Central Victorian Primary Care Partnership acknowledges the traditional owners on whose land we live and work, their rich culture and spiritual connection to country. We pay our respects to Elders past and present and celebrate their living culture and unique role in the life of our catchment.

website by