BALASAHEB DAYANDEO NAIK Vs. APPASAHEB DATTATRAYA PAWAR
LAWS(SC)-2008-1-130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on January 24,2008

BALASAHEB DAYANDEO NAIK Appellant
VERSUS
APPASAHEB DATTATRAYA PAWAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

AJAIB SINGH VS. LRS OF SHIV LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
MALHAN CONSTRUCTION VS. N.K. GUPTA [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUKRISHNA GOUNDER VS. GOWRI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
N. CHELLAN VS. S. NAGARAJA PERUMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-422] [REFERRED TO]
P VELUMANI VS. K A NOORJAHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-310] [REFERRED TO]
AVDEL TOOLS AND SERVICES VS. TRUFIT FASTENERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN DASHRAT BHADE VS. KALABAI KASHINATH KOTHIMBIRE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-5-134] [REFERRED TO]
MONICCA SHANTHA NELSON REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY J SAMUEL NELSON VS. RAJALAKSHMI VENUGOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-179] [REFERRED TO]
JAIYENDRA PRASAD SINGH VS. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-134] [REFERRED]
SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN VS. S RAJALAKSHMI [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
M/S RITU MERCANTILES PVT LTD VS. LEELAWATI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-224] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD BUILDING AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. SHANTA CHOPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
SEWA INTERNATIONAL VS. KALAWATI MATHRANI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY THADANI VS. ITWARI [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KESHAVLAL PATEL VS. NATWARLAL SAVABHAI PRAJAPATI [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL CHOUDHARY VS. BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-90] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDMAL NAGRAJ BAFNA AND ORS. VS. UTTAMRAO FAKIRRAO DESHMUKH [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-235] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDA VS. MATHURABAI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ PAL SINGH VS. SAVITRI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SHARMA VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
VE EN TEXTILES PVT LTD VS. B S BETHU RAJU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
MUKDUM SAB VS. ABDUL KADAR SAB @ SUBEDAR [LAWS(KAR)-2014-2-189] [REFERRED TO]
LALAN SINGH VS. BALRAM KERKETTA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
MONICCA SHANTHA NELSON VS. RAJALAKSHMI VENUGOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK RAJANI VS. K B PAMPATHI [LAWS(KAR)-2011-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA AGARWAL VS. UNJHA AYURVEDIC PHARMACY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-197] [REFERRED TO]
SYED QUADRI VS. SYED MUJEEBUDDIN [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. CHAMPA LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
P SELVARAJ VS. S KATHIRESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-155] [REFERRED]
ABDUL SAMI VS. NEELU DHANDHIYA [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-12-278] [REFERRED]
HIMAYAM ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS VS. S RAVICHANDRAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-279] [REFERRED]
GURMEET SINGH AND ORS. VS. JASWINDER KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
VALLIYATHAL VS. P.P. SAKTHIVEL [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-198] [REFERRED TO]
V.GNANARAJAPUSHPAM VS. BBC FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-442] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARLAL BIJREJA VS. ASHOK B AHUJA [LAWS(CHH)-2010-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
DARVESH SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. VS. DOCTORS SAHKARI GRAH IRMAN SAMITI LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-680] [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION MADRAS DIOCESE VS. KARTHIK PRINTING INK COMPANY [LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-320] [REFERRED]
DURAISINGAM VS. S.R. JAGANNATHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
S. SARALADEVI SURANA VS. G. S. SUNDARARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-297] [REFERRED TO]
MOST.SITA DEVI & ORS VS. MAHAL SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMI [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. NAGAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-683] [REFERRED TO]
M.R. RATHINDRAN VS. SARARSWATHI NARAYANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
R. VELUSAMY VS. THAAYAARAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-358] [REFERRED TO]
P ANANTHAKRISHNAN VS. P SHANBAGAVALLI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-521] [REFERRED TO]
NEERU JAIN VS. JASMINE BUILDMART PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ISHWARLAL SHIVRAM VS. RAJPUT ADAJI MEGHAJI HEIRS [LAWS(GJH)-2011-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PAL BANSAL VS. SHASHANK RASTOGI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2017-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
K.H. SHAMA RAO AND SONS, BANGALORE AND OTHERS VS. M.R. JAISHANKAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-241] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNATH PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD VS. A R MADANA GOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-483] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHAND VS. SHRI JAGIDISH CHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-3-180] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED FARUGHUDDIN VS. RAMACHANDRA BALU SHINDE [LAWS(KAR)-2024-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
PARVATHAMMA VS. UMA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG S/O JAGANNATH KALE VS. DEOMAHARAJ GURU VASUDEO MAHARAJ [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
Y. MARIYA SELVAM VS. E. YESURAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
MANSOOR AHMED VS. RUPAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-254] [REFERRED TO]
L H OF DECD. ALIBHAI KALUBHAI VS. L H OF LATE PAGI VAJA VITTAL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVARAM VS. HANUMANTH [LAWS(KAR)-2012-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
V. MANI VS. M.M. RAMASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
V BRINDA VS. SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
DHANASAMY VS. MUNUSAMY (DIED); SANGUNTHALA; SIVAKUMAR; SURYAMURTHY; SHANTHI; KALAVATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-487] [REFERRED]
SATISH KUMAR VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-42] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 743 of 1993 in and by which the High Court set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
(3.)Brief facts in a nutshell are:
The appellants/plaintiffs in special civil suit No. 320 of 1988 filed the same for specific performance of agreement dated 31.07.1985. According to the plaintiffs, the respondent herein/defendant is the owner of land Block No. 208 and Block No. 209 respectively admeasuring Area H. 0.60 R and H. 0.40 R of Village Nagaon in Hatkanangale Tahsil. The defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of the said lands to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.85,000/- per acre. The agreement was reduced into writing and according to the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by the defendant within a period of six months. It was agreed that possession of the lands was to be delivered at the time of execution of sale deed. The defendant has also undertaken the responsibility of obtaining necessary permission for sale of the lands, if required. On the date of execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant as earnest money and balance amount of the consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the defendant avoided to receive the balance amount of consideration and neglected to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs sent a legal notice on 16.07.1988 to the defendant through their advocate calling upon him to perform his part of the obligation under the contract. In spite of the notice, the defendant did not comply with the requirements which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit for specific performance or in the alternative refund of earnest money with interest thereon @ 15% per annum.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.