TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Judge Grants Plaintiff's Appeal for Specific Performance with Decree</h1> <h3>P. Lakshmi Ammal Versus S. Lakshmi Ammal and Ors.</h3> The appellate judge overturned the trial court's decision and granted the plaintiff's appeal for specific performance of the sale agreement. The judge ... - Issues:1. Specific performance of sale agreement.2. Validity of power of attorney.3. Bona fide purchaser without notice.4. Application of lis pendens.5. Defense of escalation in price.Specific Performance of Sale Agreement:The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The agreement was executed by the husband of the property owner, acting as a power agent, based on a power of attorney. The plaintiff claimed readiness to complete the sale by paying the balance sum but was met with non-cooperation from the respondents. The trial court found the agreement valid and binding on the property owner but ruled against the plaintiff, stating she was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. However, the appellate judge found that the plaintiff had indeed shown readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, overturning the trial court's decision.Validity of Power of Attorney:The trial court upheld the validity of the power of attorney used by the husband to execute the sale agreement on behalf of the property owner. It was noted that the power of attorney was in force until it was canceled by the property owner. The plaintiff's claim of advance payment was also acknowledged by the trial court. This aspect of the judgment favored the plaintiff.Bona Fide Purchaser Without Notice:The subsequent purchaser contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the initial sale agreement. The plaintiff argued that the subsequent purchaser could not be considered bona fide due to his proximity to the property. However, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the subsequent purchaser had notice of the sale agreement, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff. The judge ruled in favor of the subsequent purchaser on this issue.Application of Lis Pendens:The plaintiff argued that the subsequent sale was hit by lis pendens as it took place while the specific performance suit was pending. Citing legal precedents, the judge affirmed that the rule of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance of contracts involving immovable property. The judge held that the subsequent sale was indeed affected by lis pendens, supporting the plaintiff's argument on this issue.Defense of Escalation in Price:The plaintiff raised the defense that escalation in price cannot be a valid defense in a suit for specific performance. The judge agreed with this contention, citing legal precedent. This defense was upheld in favor of the plaintiff.In conclusion, the appellate judge set aside the trial court's judgment and allowed the appeal for specific performance of the sale agreement in favor of the plaintiff. The judge granted a decree for specific performance, providing a timeline for the balance payment and execution of the sale deed. The judgment favored the plaintiff on the issues of readiness to perform the contract, application of lis pendens, and defense of escalation in price.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
