Defendent ready to execute sale deed - but plaintiff refused to accept sale deed - plaintiff not entitled to recover amount paid by them.
Citation
K. Savithiri & Another Versus L. Ramasamy & Others
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code - Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 - Transfer of Property Act-Section 54 - Limitation Act - Article 62 - Property - Limitation - Recover suit amount - Whether statutory charge created over property for price paid by buyer (plaintiffs) was continuing on date of suit - Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover suit amount as claimed-Whether lower was right in holding that suit fails on ground of limitation since suit has not been filed within period of three years - To what relief -
Court held - conduct of practice of law was nothing but professional misconduct for breach of rules relating to professional conduct of advocates for reasons aforesaid- conduct of advocate was not germane for consideration of instant appeal - Court expresses its anguish about unfairness on part of counsel in dealing with matter -though finding of Trial Court holding that limitation to enforce charge is for three years was hereby set aside - judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing suit was hereby confirmed on aforesaid factual aspects - appeal dismissed.
Paras: 34, 36
Cases Referred:
K.Shanmugam and another v. C.Samiappan and others; 2013 (6) CTC 28.
Delhi development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co., (P) Ltd.,2000 (1) CTC 507 SC.
Videocon Properties Ltd., v. Dr.Bhalchandra Laboratories and others; 2004 (3) SCC 711.
P.Muthusamy v. K.Arumugam; 2016 (6) CTC 740.
Saidun Nessa Hoque and others v. Calcutta Vyapar Paratisthan Ltd., AIR 1978 Calcutta 285.
Mst. Anchi and Others v. Maida Ram, AIR 1987 Rajasthan II,
Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani); 1993 (1) SCC 519.
Maula Bux v. Union of India); AIR 1970 SCC 1955 (1).
Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rewal,2013 (1) TNCJ 426 (SC)
Kunwar Chiranjit Singh vs. Har Swarup [AIR 1926 P.C. 1],
Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup, AIR 1926 PC 1.
Comparative Citations:
2017 (2) LW 994, 2017 (3) CTC 812,
Court held - conduct of practice of law was nothing but professional misconduct for breach of rules relating to professional conduct of advocates for reasons aforesaid- conduct of advocate was not germane for consideration of instant appeal - Court expresses its anguish about unfairness on part of counsel in dealing with matter -though finding of Trial Court holding that limitation to enforce charge is for three years was hereby set aside - judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing suit was hereby confirmed on aforesaid factual aspects - appeal dismissed.
Paras: 34, 36
Cases Referred:
K.Shanmugam and another v. C.Samiappan and others; 2013 (6) CTC 28.
Delhi development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co., (P) Ltd.,2000 (1) CTC 507 SC.
Videocon Properties Ltd., v. Dr.Bhalchandra Laboratories and others; 2004 (3) SCC 711.
P.Muthusamy v. K.Arumugam; 2016 (6) CTC 740.
Saidun Nessa Hoque and others v. Calcutta Vyapar Paratisthan Ltd., AIR 1978 Calcutta 285.
Mst. Anchi and Others v. Maida Ram, AIR 1987 Rajasthan II,
Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani); 1993 (1) SCC 519.
Maula Bux v. Union of India); AIR 1970 SCC 1955 (1).
Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rewal,2013 (1) TNCJ 426 (SC)
Kunwar Chiranjit Singh vs. Har Swarup [AIR 1926 P.C. 1],
Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup, AIR 1926 PC 1.
Comparative Citations:
2017 (2) LW 994, 2017 (3) CTC 812,
Comments
Post a Comment