A mere statement that the exhibits have been considered can under no circumstances, be held to be a substitute for a legal proof and reason

Ajit appeared before this Court through his learned advocate and submitted that the agreement for sale was unregistered and hence, such agreement cannot be acted upon and in support of such contention, he placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal no. 6733 of 2022 and he asserted that Jyotsna was not ready and willing to get the deed of sale executed and registered within the time stipulated in the agreement and it would be proper to direct refund of advance money to Jyotsna and in support of his such contention, he referred to an unreported judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal no. 4943 of 2002. Lastly, he submitted that he is in possession of the suit property for the last 25 years.

[See the full post at: A mere statement that the exhibits have been considered can under no circumstances, be held to be a substitute for a legal proof and reason]