RAVINDER KAUR GILL AND ORS vs JEET KAUR MUKTIYAR SINGH MANN AND ANR — IA/2794/2026
Case under C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order) Section 100. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 29th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010432832024
e-Filing Number
28-08-2024
Filing Number
IA/24892/2024
Filing Date
29-08-2024
Registration No
IA/2794/2026
Registration Date
07-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE
Coram
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAVINDER KAUR GILL AND ORS
Adv. AVHAD AVINASH BHASKARRAO
DEVINDER KAUR GILL
TAJINDER SINGH GILL
Respondent(s)
JEET KAUR MUKTIYAR SINGH MANN AND ANR
KARTARSING KUDASINGH MANN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS(Legal Heir)2.
HARBANS KAUR JOGRAI SINGH2.
KARMJEET KAUR JOGRAI SINGH2.
RANJEE KAUR NACCHTAR SINGH2.
MALKIT KAUR JAGROOP SINGH2.
SUKHEET KAUR MALKIT SINGH
Orders
Case Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the trial and first appellate court's decree granting specific performance of a 1985 sale agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract was adequately established through admitted contract terms, consideration payments, and public notice of her rights, and rejected the appellant's argument that courts failed to record specific findings on this issue. The court determined that the first appellate court's factual findings on readiness and willingness could not be interfered with in second appeal jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the trial and first appellate court's decree granting specific performance of a 1985 sale agreement. The court found that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract was adequately established through admitted contract terms, consideration payments, and public notice of her rights, and rejected the appellant's argument that courts failed to record specific findings on this issue. The court determined that the first appellate court's factual findings on readiness and willingness could not be interfered with in second appeal jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts