Disposed

Smt. T. v. Devi v Shri T.v.Krishanan Nair and M. G. Narasimhan

Bombay HC1 Sept 2008NMS/3159/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for specific performance, the Plaintiff sought an injunction and a monetary deposit. The Court held that an injunction was impossible as the subject land had been surrendered to the Bangalore Development Authority. The claim for deposit was restricted to 50% of the sale proceeds, subject to the bona fides of a third-party purchaser. The application was disposed of with a note on attachme

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion disposed without granting injunction or deposit order; Plaintiff advised to apply for attachment before judgment if appropriate.

Smt. T. v. Devi Vs Shri T.v.Krishanan Nair and M. G… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3159 OF 2007

¶4

IN

¶5

 SUIT NO.2288 OF 1999

¶6

 Smt. T.V.Devi ..Plaintiff.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

 Shri T.V.Krishnan

¶9

 Nair & Anr. ..Defendants.

¶10

 Ms.Rohini Dandekar i/b.Berarwala & Co. for the
 Plaintiff.

¶11

 Mr.Ashok Verma with Mr.Tejpal i/b.Tejpal & Co. for
 the Defendants.

¶12

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2008

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

 By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an
 order directing Defendant no.1 to deposit an amount
 of Rs.16,00,000/- and for an injunction restraining
 the Defendants from disposing of, dealing with,
 encumbering or parting with possession of the suit
 land. The suit land has been surrendered by
 Defendant no.1 to the Bangalore Development
 Authority. In the circumstances, it is not possible
 to grant any relief of injunction in respect of the

¶15

 suit land.

¶16

 2. The next question is whether Defendant no.1

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 should be ordered to deposit the said amount of
 Rs.16,00,000/-. The Plaintiff’s contention is that
 the plot of land allotted to Defendant no.1 in lieu
 of the suit plot was sold by Defendant no.1 to
 Defendant no.2 by an agreement dated 28.2.2000 for
 an apparent consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-.

¶19

 3. Firstly, even assuming the Plaintiff has any
 right to the sale proceeds, it must be restricted to
 50% thereof as admittedly, the Plaintiff claims only
 a 50% right even in the suit property. The suit
 property, as stated above, is not the subject matter
 of the sale by Defendant no.1 to Defendant no.2.

¶20

 4. Prima-facie, specific performance of the suit
 agreement cannot be granted in respect of a property
 other than that which formed the subject matter of
 the agreement. Moreover, Defendant no.2 is an
 innocent third party, no order which affects his
 rights can be granted.

¶21

 5. The Plaintiff’s claim therefore at the highest,
 is in terms of money. It was contended that
 Defendant no.1 has been dealing with his properties
 in a manner so as to defeat a decree which may be
 passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Such an

¶22

 : 3 :

¶23

 application would be in the nature of an application
 for attachment before judgment. That is not the
 relief claimed in the present Notice of Motion. The
 Plaintiff is always at liberty to make an
 appropriate application for the same.

¶24

 6. With the above clarification, the Notice of
 Motion is disposed of.

¶25

***

Smt. T. v. Devi v Shri T.v.Krishanan Nair and M. G. Narasimhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. v. Devi v Shri T.v.Krishanan Nair and M. G. Narasimhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India Vs Dipan N.Thaker

vasant upendra kamath Vs lawrence crasta

Ekl Appliances Limited Vs Chandrakant Daga

Globus Stores Private Limited Vs Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Private Limited

Gujarat Park Hotels Ltd. Vs Suman Resorts (I) Ltd.

Karuna Raman Patel and 2 Ors. Vs Anil Divate