Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 5---Suit for specific performance of contract---Suit had been concurrently decreed by trial Court and Appellate Court---Defendants being dissatisfied with concurrent s and decrees of Courts had filed revision against said and decree---Defendant had alleged; firstly that trial Court was not legally competent to decide four issues collectively as it was against provisions of O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C.; secondly that material contradictions were found in evidence of witnesses; thirdly that agreement of sale did not bear the signatures of attesting witnesses; and fourthly that agreement of sale being without consideration was a void contract in view of S. 25 of Contract Act, 1872---As regard the first allegation of deciding four issues collectively, Trial Court no doubt should have given finding on each issue separately instead of deciding those collectively, but where certain issues were linked with each other and were considered together, such consideration was not at all violative of mandate contained in O. XX, R. 5 C.P.C.---In the present case said four issues being linked with each other, Court had competently decided same collectively---So far as second allegation with regard to material contradictions in evidence of witnesses was concerned, defendants could not point out said contradictions---As regard signatures of attesting witnesses on agreement of sale, witnesses though did no sign the agreement of sale but they, through their writings, had confirmed that agreement was executed in their presence and they had specifically mentioned receipt of consideration---Attesting witnesses, who were examined had fully supported their writings and had admitted that same were written by them---Merely not putting their signatures on said document would not affect document when otherwise it had been proved---As regards the contention that agreement of sale was void as it clearly shown that consideration was received by defendants/vendors and nothing was due against plaintiffs-Said fact had been confirmed by all three attesting witnesses in their…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492