Anonymous
09 December 2009 at 14:50
I have paid 3/4th of the sale consideration amount to “A” on 12/02/2006 for some lands and executed an Agreement of Sale on the same day and further agreed to pay the remaining balance amount within one year from 12/02/2006. When I want to pay the remaining balance amount, I failed to contact/trace him, his where abouts and that kept for all these days. Finally I came to know that he was absconded with a reason of over drafts from various sources.
Now I came to know about his where abouts and met him personally and requested him to take the remaining balance amount and further get it registered the lands on my name. But he refused to honour my request.
So at this stage shall I go for Specific performance of the said Agreement of Sale. And further I want to know whether the said Agreement of Sale dt 12/02/2006 is have limitation?
Anonymous
09 December 2009 at 14:13
Respected Experts,
I want to clarify a problem/doubt from your end. The problem/doubt is:-
I have paid total consideration amount to “A” in respect of some lands. Due to my personal reasons, I am not interested to get registration at this movement and I need to get the registration after some period. So which type of document is to be executed at this movement, whether it is an Agreement of Sale or a Sale Deed, to be executed on a Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp paper tentatively.
So please suggest me, which type of document is legally valid, in case, if the Vendor is not in a position to turn up or not willing to come up for registration, at the time of registration of the document, before the Registrar Office in any reason what so ever, I can have to go to Registrar office alone for registration/validation of the document, in the absence of the Vendor.
N S RAJASEKARAN
09 December 2009 at 13:17
Panel Members
I need to be clarified on whether civil recovery suit can be filed at Bangalore :-
1. against a customer who is at Hyderabad who's business transaction with my company was at Hyderabad ONLY? (means point of despatch and point of delivery are at Hyderabad)
2. What will be the status, if the case is already taken into consideration at Bangalore city civil court?
Please help
NS Rajasekaran
Bangalore
Himanshu shukla
09 December 2009 at 12:09
Dear Sir
i havea house at mhada colony four bunglow andheri(west) which hvae given on rent on the leave and license basis, it was for the 11 months, i have told them(licensee) to get it registered but they refused to do so, saying that they are not having enough money for that and they also require money for the treatment for their mentally retarded child, they were very much irregular in paying me the rent, the leave and license agreement is over on 31 -10-2009 but they have refused to vacate the flat instead they are asking me rs 10 lacs to vacate the flat. the police is not helping us , please tell us how can i can get the eviction order from the court. thanks
Mohamed Ali
09 December 2009 at 10:32
Dear All,
We had filed an Interlocutary Application under section 151 of CPC to delete Legal heirs who are misjoinders as per Mohameddan law, in the pending Final decree proceedings in Priciple Civil judge Sr division and CJM court, We had mentioned in our prayer that they are not entitle for any share as per Mohameddan hence delete these LR's.
Our lawyer suppose to have filed this IA in Order 1 rule 10(2) but somehow he filed in 151 of CPC, Now our IA has been dismissed stating misjoinders cannot be deleted in pending Final decree proceedings.
Question: Our Advocate says we have to file a writ petition in High court but when I Spoke to some advocates they are telling any Order passed on section 151 of CPC even though on IA in trial court is appeal able in District court, So need to file a Writ in High court directly ?
G. ARAVINTHAN
09 December 2009 at 07:43
Suit for recovery of money filed with court fee of Rs30/-
Deficit of Rs.16,400/-
deficit made clear after 3 years of
limitation
Sec 149 CPC application filed after two months of payment of deficit fee
Judge allowed the application without reasons.
what is the remedy for respondents now?
Anonymous
09 December 2009 at 00:31
Respected sir,
‘Mahafiskhana’ which is in charge of keeping land records of survey settlement (took place between 1914 to 1927) of my area. I am in need of certified copy of Survey settlement (Khatiyan) document of my land. When I approached ‘Mahafiskhana’ where it gets issued, they r telling that all the record of your area has been badly mutilated and has been reduced to pieces, so it cannot be obtained. Rare records have been reduced to pieces. There is no other place from where we can get it. Employees are drawing huge salaries, and are not capable of keeping records. From where should I get it? Who is responsible? Where shall I complain? Is complaining to Hon’ble High Court will be fruitful? Thanks to all.
ABHINAV JAIN
08 December 2009 at 23:23
Whether a Civil Court Can be impleaded as party respondent in a writ petition filed against its order?
1.S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786 held in affirmative.
2.S.C. in A.I.R. 1999 SC 976 held(rather observed in para 14) in negative
3.Raj. H.C.(SB) in one decision - 2009 WLC 57 upheld the decision of S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786
4.Raj. H.C.(SB) in another decision - unreported(but passed a day before the above judgement in 3) rejected S.C. judgement in A.I.R 1963 SC 786 but upheld S.C. Judgement in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (Para 14).
In my view decision of the S.C. in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (para 14) is not the ratio decidendi but merely an obiter dictum, therefore no court inferior to the S.C. is bound by its obiter dictum in any case?
Kindly Suggest?
ABHINAV JAIN
08 December 2009 at 23:21
Whether a Civil Court Can be impleaded as party respondent in a writ petition filed against its order?
1.S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786 held in affirmative.
2.S.C. in A.I.R. 1999 SC 976 held(rather observed in para 14) in negative
3.Raj. H.C.(SB) in one decision - 2009 WLC 57 upheld the decision of S.C. in A.I.R. 1963 SC 786
4.Raj. H.C.(SB) in another decision - unreported(but passed a day before the above judgement in 3) rejected S.C. judgement in A.I.R 1963 SC 786 but upheld S.C. Judgement in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (Para 14).
In my view decision of the S.C. in A.I.R 1999 SC 976 (para 14) is not the ratio decidendi but merely an obiter dictum, therefore no court inferior to the S.C. is bound by its obiter dictum in any case?
Kindly Suggest?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
property
my grand father has purchased the property in the year 1957 and he is expired in the year 1970 without will after my grand father expired my father sold the property in the year 1970 and my age was 15 years at that time but my father has mentioned me as minor son of my father now i want to get my equal share in that property and i got the property knowledge in the 2009 please suggest me