That the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement to sell dated 07.08.2005
under which the defendants agreed to sell the land in question for a consideration of Rs.
Therefore, the appellant herein – original plaintiff instituted a Suit being Original Suit No 205/2006 before the learned trial Court for specific performance of agreement to sell and in the alternative return of the plaintiff’s amount with interest. Relief and costs?”
4 On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.08.2005.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
Without upsetting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on execution of agreement to sell dated 7.8.2005; payment of part sale consideration and the other issues held in favour of the plaintiff, straightway the High Court considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and opined that the trial Court was not justified in enhancing the sale consideration and ought not to have exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. 6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court for specific performance of agreement to sell, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
4 It is then submitted that even, though not required, the learned trial Court enhanced the sale consideration to do complete justice, which the plaintiff agreed.
6 It is submitted that as such the High Court has straightway gone and considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, without adverting to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on execution of the agreement to sell; payment of part sale consideration and that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendants that as such the agreement to sell was a forced agreement to sell as at the relevant time, defendant no.1 suffered a heart attack and he was in need of money and therefore he was compelled to sell the property in question.
Case Title: C. HARIDASAN Vs. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVAKURUP (2023 INSC 37)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004072-004072 / 2022
