Agreement To Sale During Pendency Of Suit

[3) Where possible, the parties were named in the appeal in accordance with their status.] 2.4. It must also be noted that: there was a motion in this appeal (No. 3 of 2010) pointing to the decline of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 2), respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 2) and respondent No. 6 (request No. 3), arguing that the respondent`s legal agent No. 1 was already admitted to the minutes; and the legal representatives of the deceased respondents No. 4 and 6 may be recorded in the minutes.

However, this application was rejected on 24.02.2012. On the other hand, further applications (No. 5-6 of 2013) for the replacement of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 (defendant No. 3) and for delay were accepted on 05.08.2013. In any event, the estate of the original applicants in dispute (part 1 – 2) is duly represented by their daughter (applicant part 4- defendant 2); and the dispute in this dispute is essentially between it and the complainants (later acquirers). 11. With respect to the submissions of qualified counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances, this appeal proceeding focuses on whether the High Court was entitled to allow the second appeal; and antagonizing the judgment and the decree in question? To define this point, three fundamental issues need to be addressed. The first question is whether the agreement of 20.09.1965 and the endorsement of 28.04.1966 were for sale and were not the documents that had been executed for security reasons for a loan taken by defendant 1 to 3? If the first question is answered in favour of the applicants and the agreements in question are considered to be those relating to the sale of real estate, the second question would be whether the applicants were still willing and willing to carry out their part of the contract and that no personal blockage was working against them to enforce the specific performance of the agreement in question. For an effective assignment of this case, the third question would be whether the applicants were not good-faith purchasers and whether the sales in their favour were concerned with the persitability with respect to the property in question. However, as will be noted at a later date, even if the above questions were dealt with in favour of the applicants, would another point still be to be determined whether the High Court decree to reduce the burden of the particular benefit on the enhanced market value of the property is in fact and in the circumstances of this case, or whether another form of discharge is consistent with the objectives of justice? However, if the applicant has committed inconsistent conduct or is the beneficiary of a secret transaction or transaction by the owner of the property that violates the court`s reserve order, or if the application is excessively delayed, the court will have the full right to refrain from praying for a meal. » 36.