<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (7) TMI 373 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278784</link>
    <description>Specific performance based on an alleged oral sale agreement for immovable property requires strict proof of consensus ad idem on all essential terms. Although such a contract need not be in writing, the plaintiff must show that the vital terms were finally settled, including payment arrangements, execution and registration of the sale deed, possession, and any statutory clearances. On the facts, these elements were not proved and the later discussions did not establish a concluded bargain. Mere acceptance of price, without proof of agreement on the remaining essential terms, was insufficient. The claim for specific performance therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=559100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 373 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278784</link>
      <description>Specific performance based on an alleged oral sale agreement for immovable property requires strict proof of consensus ad idem on all essential terms. Although such a contract need not be in writing, the plaintiff must show that the vital terms were finally settled, including payment arrangements, execution and registration of the sale deed, possession, and any statutory clearances. On the facts, these elements were not proved and the later discussions did not establish a concluded bargain. Mere acceptance of price, without proof of agreement on the remaining essential terms, was insufficient. The claim for specific performance therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>