Specific Performance- Illegal Agreement To Sell Can T Be Enforced In Favour Of Plaintiff

It was therefore possible to guess that, although the accused did not assert illegality and was not invoked by him for the defence, the court itself, on the illegality arising from the evidence, took note of it and dismissed the appeal ex turpi causa non oriturio. It was claimed that no soiled hand could touch the pure source of justice. It has also been found that, where parties participate in unlawful agreements or other transactions, the courts of equity under the rule of law will not grant remedies which, according to the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendetis et possidentis Explanation. * * *. 3 (1969) 3 SCC 11 Section 74 deals with subletting by persons with disabilities. Since the applicant is not a person with a disability, the section does not need to be read. Section 75 provides that “the subletting of all or part of the operation of a tenant of Pakka, carried out on a regular and legitimate basis before the entry into force of this Act, shall end at the expiry of the sublease period or 4 years after the entry into force of this Act, whichever is shorter.” § 76: 8. The facts in the present case are indisputable. On 20.10.1976, the costume field, i.e. 1 Acre 6 Guntas, with measure No. 57 at Mutkur Village, Angondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District, was granted in favour of Bale Venkataramanappa. On 13.09.1983, the premium was paid by Bale Venkataramanappa and the subsidy in his favour was confirmed by a 15-year non-assignment clause.

On 15.09.1983, there was an entry of changes in the revenue register, which introduced the name of the bale Venkataramanappa in question, with the confirmation that the country could not be ceded for a period of 15 years. On 23.04.1990, Bale Venkataramanappa mortgaged the land in favour of the applicant by registered mortgage for an amount of 20,000/- The deed of credit the receipt by Bale Venkataramanappa of the full amount mortgaged. 11. The brief question which arises in the present appeals is whether or not the sales agreement of 15.05.1990 concluded by Bale Venkataramanappa in favour of the appellant would be legally applicable. A could not sue B on invoice on profits. . . .

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.