V.ANANTHA RAMASUBRAMANIAM @ V.A.SUBRAMANIAM AND ANR. vs M.N.RAMALINGAM — C.A. No. 1760/2009

Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010318902008

Filing Date

04-Nov-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 1760/2009

Diary Number

31890/2008

Order Date

28-Aug-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V.ANANTHA RAMASUBRAMANIAM @ V.A.SUBRAMANIAM AND ANR.

    Adv. S. N. BHAT (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M.N.RAMALINGAM

    Adv. VIJAY KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 28-Aug-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  4. 27-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 27-Aug-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  6. 06-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 06-Aug-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 27-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 18-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 16-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 16-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 27-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 25-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 04-Nov-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 1760/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 001760/2009 Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appellants' appeal on 28 August 2019, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in favor of the plaintiffs' specific performance claim. Key Issue: Whether the defendant could enforce an agreement (Ext.B-1) purportedly executed by plaintiff no.2 relinquishing his rights under an earlier sale agreement dated 09.06.1989 for Rs.75,000. Critical Finding: The Court held the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings by overemphasizing signature analysis. The Court emphasized that the defendant improperly withheld the critical document from plaintiffs during evidence and failed to summon plaintiff no.2 as a witness, warranting an adverse inference against the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case