https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196147 In a specific performance dispute over an agreement to sell immovable property, the court found no proved contractual undertaking to execute a deed of indemnity, but treated the title as approved and the agreement as subsisting. Negotiations for settlement did not amount to abandonment or rescission, and time was not of the essence; completion was treated as having been impliedly extended during compromise discussions. The draft conveyance was accepted as having been sent and not returned. The suit was maintainable as one for specific performance simpliciter, and monetary compensation was not shown to be an adequate substitute. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to enforcement, subject to relinquishing claims for vacant possession and damages. en-us Thu, 29 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:13:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196147 In a specific performance dispute over an agreement to sell immovable property, the court found no proved contractual undertaking to execute a deed of indemnity, but treated the title as approved and the agreement as subsisting. Negotiations for settlement did not amount to abandonment or rescission, and time was not of the essence; completion was treated as having been impliedly extended during compromise discussions. The draft conveyance was accepted as having been sent and not returned. The suit was maintainable as one for specific performance simpliciter, and monetary compensation was not shown to be an adequate substitute. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to enforcement, subject to relinquishing claims for vacant possession and damages. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196147