Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. Brijmohan

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2019CSA/75/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court appellant's appeal against concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The single-judge bench, finding no argument and no ground for interference, dismissed the appeal and disposed of pending applications. The court noted the plaintiff failed to make out a case for specific performance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. All pending applications stood disposed of. The record was sent back.

Raj Kumar Vs Brijmohan — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1996

Raj Kumar

----Appellant

Versus

Brijmohan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshay Nagori For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

19/08/2019

¶12

Counsel states that he pleads no instruction as he has sent registered notice to the appellant who is not to be found.

¶13

This Court finds that there is a concurrent finding with regard to the plaintiff having not made out a case for specific performance while the question of law were framed on 09.07.1997, as no one appears for contesting the case and present counsel had pleaded no instruction.

¶14

I have carefully scanned the questions farmed by the Court which are as under :-

¶15

“(i) Whether in view off admission by the defendant with regard to execution of the agreement to sell dated 07.10.70 Ex.1, the suit for specific performance ought to have been decreed by the courts-below and judgments and decree contrary to it are not sustainable in the eye of law ?

¶16

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the time disclosed in the agreement dated 07.10.70 Ex.1 is essence of the agreement, if so its effect ?

¶17

[CSA-75/1996]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

(iii) Whether failure of the defendant not to cross-examine PW 1 is sufficient proof to prove Ex.2 agreement dated 10.04.75 and testimonial value of PW 1 cannot be undermined by expert evidence /

¶20

(iv) Whether statements of the eye-witnesses before whom the signatures or thumb impressions are made reliable in comparison to expert evidence, especially in the present case when the defendant himself had admitted execution of agreement dated 7.10.70 Ex.1 ?

¶21

(v) Whether in the present case, three years limitation under Article 54 of the Schedule of Indian Limitation Act is to be computed from the date fixed for performance of the contract in question being essence of time or three years limitation is to be computed when the plaintiff-appellant has noticed that performance of the contract is refused by the defendant, if so its effect ?”

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded no instruction and the questions of law framed by this Court are not supported by any argument. Having gone through the judgments passed by courts below, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgments dated 04.10.1993 and 20.11.1995 passed by learned trial court and appellate court respectively whereby both the courts have given concurrent finding and rejected the civil suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record be sent back.

¶24

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶25

7-Sudheer/-

Raj Kumar v. Brijmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. Brijmohan

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

Krishna Devi Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Raghunandan @ Raju Vs Man Singh and Ors.

Municipal Board, Chittorgarh Vs Mangi Devi and Ors.

M/S Bajaj Eco-Tech Products Ltd. Vs M/S Hasti Petro Chemical and Shipp. and Anr.

Poonama Ram Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited