Paidana v. Baipathu
Case brief
What is this about?
Held that the agreement dated 20.06.1972 (Ext.11) is not a valid contract as it lacks signatures and the original has not been proved. Consequently, the specific performance suit fails, and the appeal is dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Court confirmed lower court's dismissal of suit for specific performance.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.A. NO.292 OF 1985
In the matter of an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1985 and 12.08.1985 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Berhampur in Title Appeal No.15/83 (T.A. 6/82 GDC) confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1981 and 05.01.1982 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Paralakhemundi in T.S. No.11/1977.
Paidana Khageswar Rao Naidu :::: Appellant.
-:: VERSUS ::-
Baipothu Kasamma and Others :::: Respondents.
Advocate(s) who appeared in this case by Video Conferencing Mode:-
For Appellant :::: M/s. S.S. Rao (Advocate ). For Respondent :::: None
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the agreement dated 20.06.1972 (Ext.11) is a valid and enforceable contract requiring execution of defendants.
Whether Clause M of the subsequent agreement is supported by consideration.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Paidana Khageswar Rao Naidu
- respondent
Baipothu Kasamma
Coram
D.Dash
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court