SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
Injunction--Permanent injunction--Possession--Once it is proved that plaintiff were not in possession of suit property on date of filing of suit, suit for injunction not competent.; Tharu Ram v. Jatinde Singh, 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 530
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41--Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Bonafide Purchaser--Specific stand taken by plaintiff/respondent no.1 that transaction of sale in favour of appellants was sham transaction to defeat rights of plaintiffs--It was specially pleaded that appellants are real brothers of vendor and sale deed in their favour could not affect legal of plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance--Appellant even did not claim an issue of bonafide purchasers for consideration--It cannot be said that appellants were bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.13(1) (a)--Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Right of Purchaser against person without title--Vendor neither owner nor in possession of suit land at time of agreement to sell--Whether suit for specific performance could be decreed--YES--On acquisition of title in property subsequently, vendee can enforce contract of specific performance.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh ,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.20--Bonafide transferee--Hardship--Sale deed in favour of appellants was subsequent to agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff/respondent--Cannot be said that appellants could not forsee hardship at that time, as admittedly they are real brothers of vendor--Also, cannot be said that appellants had no knowledge of agreement to sell--Plea of bonafide purchaser not raised either before learned trial Court or learned lower appellate Court though specifically impleaded as party on averment that transaction of sale in their favour was a sham transaction to defeat right of plaintiff/respondent--No ground to deny specific performance in terms of Section 20.; Kartar Singh & Anr. v. Kuldeep Singh : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 512
S.34--Permanent injunction--Appellant filed suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in intended construction sought to be raised on first floor of tenanted premises--Respondent specifically pleaded that roof was part of tenanted premises--Held, that a party who pleads a fact is required to prove same by adducing cogent evidence--Respondent failed to discharge their onus which was specifically on them--No evidence to establish that roof was part of their tenancy--Besides, shops are divided into two blocks of four each with stair case in middle and its roof was part of tenanted premises then in that eventuality user of same would have been trespassing on premises in possession of other tenant which could never have intention of tenancy so cheated in favour of respondent--Apart in Civil Revision findings of Rent controller and Appellate Authority with regard to fact that roof was not part of tenanted premises were not to be disturbed.; Manjit Kaur v. M/S Punjab Sales Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh & Ors.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 496
