A plaintiff cannot examine in his place, his attorney holder who did not have personal knowledge either of the transaction or of his readiness and willingness: Supreme Court

Advertisements

The Supreme Court on Friday,17^th May,2024 had given its judgment on the case of Rajesh Kumar vs Anand Kumar and others.

In this case, the appellant/ plaintiff had challenged and questioned the judgment given by the High Court of Madhya pradesh on 1^st September,2019. In the judgment the court had allowed the appeal which was filed by the respondents regarding the case and the High court had set aside the judgment also which was given by the Trial court in the year 2003.

 The mere facts of the case were that the appellant/ plaintiff entered into an agreement  with the respondent for purchase of land which is of around  145.60 acres. The land was situated at village Khirsau, Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur, M.P for sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre, totalling Rs. 4,41,000. The appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 41,000 on the date of agreement to sell the land.

 In the future, the appellant had also paid an additional  amount of Rs.20,000 for which an endorsement in the backside of the agreement. After paying all the amount which was there in the agreement, the appellant thought that now the agreement of sale would come to an end.

However, the sale deed was executed of the said land by the respondents in the absence of the appellant and that was the reason that the controversy and problem arised between the appellant and the respondent.

When this case went to the Supreme Court. So, the bench of the Supreme Court comprised of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Prakash Kumar Mithra had said in their judgment that the plaintiff had come into an agreement with only one of the co-owners and thereafter sought extensions for execution of the sale deed but did not prefer any suit though he was aware of the sale deed and that’s the reason that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance on this ground.

As a result the Apex court had upheld the judgment of the High Court of Madhya pradesh and rejected the appeal of the Appellant.

CASE NAME – Rajesh Kumar vs Anand Kumar and others.

NAME – DAKSH SRIVASTAVA, G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY, COURSE- B.A.LLB, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature

Admin