Skip to content


Gudur Ranga Reddi, Died, and ors. Vs. Gundala Pitchi Reddi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad37; 25Ind.Cas.973
AppellantGudur Ranga Reddi, Died, and ors.
RespondentGundala Pitchi Reddi and anr.
Cases ReferredHimatlal Votilal v. Vasudeo Ganesh
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1817), section 27 - specific performance, suit for--contract of sale to plaintiff--subsequent sale to defendant--notice of prior contract after execution of sale-deed and before registration--consideration for sale, adjustment prior of mortgage--debt--'paid his money in good faith' meaning of--decree, proper, form of civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xli, rule 33. - .....(appellant) received notice of the plaintiff's contract, exhibit a, after execution of his own sale-deed (exhibit ii), but before its registration. no cash was to be paid under exhibit ii, but the sale-amount was to be adjusted towards a mortgage (exhibit v) held by the appellant. we are of opinion that the recital in exhibit ii does not operate as an adjustment so as to put the appellant in the same position as a man who had paid his money in good faith' within the meaning of section 27 of the specific relief act. in these circumstances we should hold, following himatlal votilal v. vasudeo ganesh 16 ind. cas. 680 : 36 b. 446 : 14 bom. l.r. 634, that the plaintiff was entitled to claim specific performance as against the 2nd defendant.2. the decision of the lower appellate court is.....
Judgment:

1. In this case it is found that the 2nd defendant (appellant) received notice of the plaintiff's contract, Exhibit A, after execution of his own sale-deed (Exhibit II), but before its registration. No cash was to be paid under Exhibit II, but the sale-amount was to be adjusted towards a mortgage (Exhibit V) held by the appellant. We are of opinion that the recital in Exhibit II does not operate as an adjustment so as to put the appellant in the same position as a man who had paid his money in good faith' within the meaning of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. In these circumstances we should hold, following Himatlal Votilal v. Vasudeo Ganesh 16 Ind. Cas. 680 : 36 B. 446 : 14 Bom. L.R. 634, that the plaintiff was entitled to claim specific performance as against the 2nd defendant.

2. The decision of the lower Appellate Court is right and the appeal is dismissed with costs; but the decree should be amended by directing that the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant as well as the 1st defendant should execute a proper sale-deed to the plaintiff. This is ordered under Order XLT, Rule 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //