Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies burden of proof in specific performance cases, emphasizing defendant's conduct and failure to challenge agreement promptly.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that plaintiffs seeking temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC need not disclose prior agreements not forming the basis of the suit.
Madras High Court holds that a subsequent purchaser acting in good faith without notice is protected under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, even if prior agreement is unregistered.
Kerala High Court holds that oral agreements extending limitation period for specific performance can be considered at trial, overturning plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Karnataka High Court holds that a transferee with notice of a prior agreement of sale cannot claim bonafide purchaser status; readiness and willingness must be assessed holistically.
Bombay High Court holds that limitation for specific performance begins only upon breach of agreement, not the stipulated execution date, clarifying Article 54 of Limitation Act.
Bombay High Court grants liberty to file suit for specific performance after dismissing writ petition, holding that time spent in litigation may be considered for limitation waiver.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that dismissing specific performance suit despite finding time not essence of contract is legally unsustainable. Interim order protects property pending appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that temporary injunctions must be limited to the disputed land portion, not the entire property, emphasizing balance of convenience and irreparable loss.