| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Ishwar (Since Deceased) Through LRS & Ors. vs. Bhim Singh & Anr. |
| Introduction | The case states about the specific performance of a contract for the sale of property. |
| Factual Background | An agreement to sell property dated May 18, 2005, was not executed by the appellant despite a part payment.The trial court ordered the refund of earnest money but the appellate court allowed specific performance. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | The court ordered that the execution court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of balance consideration, and substantial justice had been done as the decree-holder had consistently shown a willingness to perform the contract. |
| Conclusion | The appeal was dismissed. The execution court’s decision to extend time was upheld as the decree-holder had shown intent to fulfill the contract, and substantial justice was achieved. |
| Current Scenario | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the execution court’s decision. |
CASE SUMMARY – In this case, an agreement to sell property was made in 2005, and despite a part payment, the seller (appellant) did not execute the sale deed. The trial court only ordered the refund of earnest money, but the appellate court decreed specific performance. The execution court extended the time for depositing the balance payment, which the appellants challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the execution court, ruling that the court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit and that substantial justice had been done, as the decree-holder had consistently displayed intent to perform the contract.
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ MORE – LIABILITY IN VEHICLE ACCIDENTS: MANUFACTURER VS DEALER RESPONSIBILITY
