https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289060 The Supreme Court held that the agreement dated 7th February 1942 was concluded, entitling the plaintiff to specific performance. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were deemed insufficient to invalidate the contract. The Court favored a decree requiring both vendor and subsequent purchaser to convey the property. Payment distribution of Rs. 58,000 to the appellants and Rs. 4,000 to the Custodian, U.P., aimed to prevent unjust enrichment. The High Court's decree was modified, directing the execution of a sale deed and payment distribution. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. en-us Wed, 18 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2020 10:48:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289060 The Supreme Court held that the agreement dated 7th February 1942 was concluded, entitling the plaintiff to specific performance. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were deemed insufficient to invalidate the contract. The Court favored a decree requiring both vendor and subsequent purchaser to convey the property. Payment distribution of Rs. 58,000 to the appellants and Rs. 4,000 to the Custodian, U.P., aimed to prevent unjust enrichment. The High Court's decree was modified, directing the execution of a sale deed and payment distribution. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289060