https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171865 The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the agreement dated 11.05.1979 was an agreement for sale, not a loan agreement. The Court upheld the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to grant specific performance. The appellant's argument against specific performance based on rising property prices was rejected. The Court found the appellant's conduct, entering multiple agreements for the same property, as an attempt to evade honoring the agreement. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171865 The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the agreement dated 11.05.1979 was an agreement for sale, not a loan agreement. The Court upheld the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to grant specific performance. The appellant's argument against specific performance based on rising property prices was rejected. The Court found the appellant's conduct, entering multiple agreements for the same property, as an attempt to evade honoring the agreement. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171865