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

CASE DISPOSED

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

C.p.c.- (Non-interlocutory Order) Section 100

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

29-04-2026
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case