1995 (3) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e counsel on both sides. Admittedly the respondents are owners of the land measuring 5 acres 39 guntas in Bhoopasandra village Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. An agreement dated 25.1.1991 was entered into between the appellants and the respondents. On the basis thereof the appellants filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interdicting with his possession and fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt of Rs. 5,00,000 till 19.3.1991, in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the defendant. Hence the defendant was constrained to cancel the agreement dated 25,1.1991 by issuing a legal notice on 19.3.1991. It is also relevant to state here that though there is a mention regarding delivery of possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff in the agreement, the possession has not be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 29,87,000". In place of it add; It is incorrect to state that the defendant have entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 25,1.1991. It is true that this defendants have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 25.1.1991 for the development of the suit schedule land for the mutual benefit of the parties. 2. Delete the words, "of sale'! in fifth line of para....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to the respondents to wiggle out from the admission. Admission is a material piece of evidence which would be in favour of the appellant and binds the respondents when the admission is sought to be withdrawn and some additional facts are sought to he introduced, it would be inconsistent and the High Court was not justified in permitting such an amendment. We find no force in the contention. I....