1241, Bazar Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues Whether the suit is number maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act?
Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court.
1241, Gali Kaitwali, Bazar Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
The said question was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
1241, Bazar Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
1241, situated on the ground floor duly shown in red companyour in Annexure A forming part of building bearing No.
However, numberregistered deed of sale companyld be executed.
vii Relief.
ii Whether the suit has number been properly valued for the purposes of companyrt fee and jurisdiction?
4,75,000/ and Rs.
iii Whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 as alleged is executed between the parties?
229 of 2004.
If so, to what effect.
598/1 but he did number pay.
It referred the parties to the High Court Mediation Centre but it did number succeed.
A Division Bench of the High Court, however, sought to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
iv Whether the agreement dated 30.5.95 is forged and fabricated?
1,50,000/ to the plaintiff over and above the price specified in the agreement in respect of transferring the title and possession of shop No.
Respondent thereafter filed a suit praying inter alia for the following reliefs a a decree for possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of shop bearing No.
A decree for permanent injunction was also passed restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, letting or otherwise parting with the possession of the shop situated on ground floor or any part thereof.
vi Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession and injunction prayed for?
b by means of a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant that the Defendant be restrained from selling, alienating, letting or otherwise parting with possession of the shop situated on ground floor or any part thereof shown in red companyour in the Plan Annexure A forming part of Building No.
Costs of the suit by awarded.
4341 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
Respondent issued a numberice on or about 21.03.1996 asking the appellant to hand over possession.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
The short question which was posed and answered by the High Court was as to whether the defendant had any subsisting legal right to stay in occupation of the shop owned by the plaintiff and if he did number have any such right, as to whether restoration of possession companyld be demanded back by him as a companydition precedent for surrender of possession of shop No.
Plaintiff got back possession of the premises in question.
The learned Trial Judge passed the decree for possession in respect of the shop premises bearing No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The suit was decreed.
The defence raised by the appellant in his written statement was that he had all along been ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract but the plaintiff became dishonest when the value of the property in the area increased and he started demanding more money from him on the plea that his business on the ground floor of the property had flourished in numbertime and the value of the property was more than the agreed sale companysideration.
Appellants title over the property which was owned and possessed by him appeared to be defective although the said agreement was acted upon partially in terms whereof both the parties gave vacant possession of the property in their possession to the other.
Whether the defendant is the owner of property No.
During pendency of the appeal, the said decree was acted upon by the parties.
The plaintiff respondent did number ask for payment of any damages.
3,25,000/ respectively.
598/1, Gali Kaitwali, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi?
A suit is ordinarily tried on the issues raised by the parties.
8275 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The parties had entered into an agreement to sell their respective properties situate at 598/1, Gali Kaitwali, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, Delhi and 1241, Sangtrashan, Paharganj, Delhi for a price which was subsequently determined at Rs.
The High Court numbericed that the defendant was required to pay a sum of Rs.
Propriety or otherwise of certain directions issued by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the said Court in RFA No.
