Search results
- The agreement to sell dated 22.01.1993 (paper No. 18A) shows that the seller Vijay Kumar Sharma (defendant-appellant) was required to execute transfer deed in favour of the purchaser Devesh Behari Saxena (Plaintiff-respondent) after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 13,21,000/-.
indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1309835/?formInput=vijay kumar sharmaVijay Kumar Sharma vs Devesh Behari Saxena on 16 November, 2007
The agreement to sell dated 22.01.1993 (paper No. 18A) shows that the seller Vijay Kumar Sharma (defendant-appellant) was required to execute transfer deed in favour of the purchaser Devesh Behari Saxena (Plaintiff-respondent) after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 13,21,000/-.
- Facts
- Issue
- Analysis
- Conclusion
The plaintiff-respondent filed O.S No. 436 of 1995 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad, seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 22-1-1993 and possession over the disputed plot. The plaintiff also requested the registration of the agreement, followed by the execution and registration of the transfer deed in t...
Whether the agreement to sell dated 22-1-1993, being an unregistered document, is legally enforceable and a decree for specific performance of the contract can be passed?
The agreement dated 22-1-1993 is an unregistered document. According to the provisions of the relevant Act, a suit for a decree directing the registration of the document can be instituted after recourse has been taken to the provisions of sections 71 and 72 of the Act. It is admitted that the plaintiff never requested the defendant to get the agre...
Based on the above analysis, the court should conclude that the agreement to sell dated 22-1-1993, being an unregistered document, is not legally enforceable. Therefore, a decree for specific performance of the contract cannot be passed.
Vijay Kumar Sharma), whereby the suit has been decreed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the agreement to sell dated 22-1-1993 registered before registering authority within one month and then to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of this agreement after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs. 13 ...
Aug 30, 2023 · In the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Devesh Behari Saxena, the ownership of a plot was transferred for a consideration of Rs.20 lakh. The document was held to be a sale not a lease. Money consideration:
Facts: The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell a plot to Devesh Behari Saxena for Rs. 20,21,000 on January 22, 1993. The petitioner, claiming to be an exporter in urgent need of money due to larger export orders, agreed to sell the property. The petitioner fell ill and was unable to attend proceedings.
Mar 19, 2024 · A similar view is taken by Allahabad high court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Devesh Behari Saxena (AIR 2008 Allahabad 66). The court held that an unregistered agreement of sale is inadmissible in evidence, it cannot be taken into consideration for passing a decree for its specific performance in favor of the plaintiff.
Vijay Kumar Sharma), whereby the suit has been decreed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the agreement to sell dated 22.01.1993 registered before registering authority within one month and then to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of this agreement after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.
