S. KESARI HANUMAN GOUD versus ANJUM JEHAN & ORS.

S. KESARI HANUMAN GOUD versus ANJUM JEHAN & ORS.

The High Court's finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part was perverse and contrary to evidence. The trial court’s decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, except for a small area purchased by defendant no.6, is restored. Power of attorney holder cannot depose for principal regarding matters of personal knowledge.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: S. Kesari Hanuman Goud; Respondent/defendant No.1: Anjum Jehan; Respondent/defendant No.3: K.S.R. Murthy; Respondent/defendant No.7: K.Y. Rajaiah; Respondent/defendant No.2: Narsoji; Respondent/defendant No.6: Defendant No.6 (represented by Lrs. defendant nos.6 to 10)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Review Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; trial court decree restored
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness, Bona Fide Purchaser, Power of Attorney, Code of Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness Bona Fide Purchaser Power of Attorney Code of Civil Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Kesari Hanuman Goud

Appellant/plaintiff

Anjum Jehan

Respondent/defendant No.1

K.S.R. Murthy

Respondent/defendant No.3

K.Y. Rajaiah

Respondent/defendant No.7

Narsoji

Respondent/defendant No.2

Defendant No.6 (represented by Lrs. defendant nos.6 to 10)

Respondent/defendant No.6

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Review Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance
  2. 2 Whether subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice
  3. 3 Whether a power of attorney holder can depose in place of the principal

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part was perverse and contrary to evidence. The trial court’s decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, except for a small area purchased by defendant no.6, is restored. Power of attorney holder cannot depose for principal regarding matters of personal knowledge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; trial court decree restored

Orders

  • Appellant entitled to execution and registration of sale deed for suit land minus land acquired and land purchased by respondent no.6
  • Appellant directed to refund compensation received to respondent no.1 within three months with 9% interest from date of receipt till date of payment