Julien Educational Trust vs Sourendra Kumar Roy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1787

2009(8) Supreme 450
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
M/s. Julien Educational Trust — Appellant
versus
Sourendra Kumar Roy & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8021-8082 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C)Ngs:19619-20 of 2008)
Decided on : 2-12-2009

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S. K.Mitra, Raja Chatterjee, G. S. Chatterjee, Advs., for the Appellant(s).
For the Respondents:C. Mukund, Pankaj Jain, Ashok Jain, Bijay K. Jain, Dr. Kailash Chand, Amit Kasera, Advs., for the Respondent(s).

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 – Suit for specific performance filed by appellant an Julien Educational Trust against respondents to execute registered Deed of Conveyance in respect of suit schedule property – In the said suit, appellant filed an application for an order of injunction to restrain the defendants/ respondent from selling, encumbering and/or otherwise alienating and/or changing the nature and character of the suit schedule property during the pendency of suit – Application of appellant Trust was allowed – Appeal – High Court set aside the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court with the result that the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was rendered practically infructuous – Appeal – Materials on record showed that a prima facie case had been made out by appellant Trust as to the agreement for sale, which had to go to trial – Whether there was a concluded contract or not between the appellant Trust and, the Respondent Nos. l to 8 was a matter of evidence and could only be gone into during trial of the suit – This was one such case where an interim order was required to be passed to maintain the status quo of the suit property, during the pendency of the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant Trust, but at the same time appropriate directions should also be given so that the suit is disposed of expeditiously – Having found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant Trust held that in the light of the principles of balance of convenience and inconvenience, interim relief should be granted to the appellant Trust – Appeals allowed setting aside order of High Court. (Paras 14 to 20)
       Facts of the Case :
        Suit for specific performance was filed by appellant an Julien Educational Trust herein in the instant case against respondents to execute registered Deed of Conveyance in respect of suit schedule property. In the said suit, appellant filed an application for an order of injunction to restrain the defendants/ respondent from selling, encumbering and/or otherwise alienating and/or changing the nature and character of the suit schedule property during the pendency of suit. Application of appellant Trust was allowed .On Appeal thereagainst High Court set aside the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court with the result that the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was rendered practically infructuous.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Materials on record showed that a prima facie case had been made out by appellant Trust as to the agreement for sale, which had to go to trial. Whether there was a concluded contract or not between the appellant Trust and, the Respondent Nos. l to 8 was a matter of evidence and could only be gone into during trial of the suit.This was one such case where an interim order was required to be passed to maintain the status quo of the suit property, during the pendency of the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant Trust, but at the same time appropriate directions should also be given so that the suit is disposed of expeditiously. Having found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant Trust held that in the light of the principles of balance of convenience and inconvenience, interim relief should be granted to the appellant Trust . Appeals were allowed setting aside order of High Court .
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein Julien Educational Trust, claims to be a benevolent trust created by a registered deed of Trust dated 30.07.1970 for the purpose of encouraging education and other allied activities. It claims to be registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and has its registered office at 35E, Elgin Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020. The appellant runs a reputed school, known as Julien Day School, at premises No.4, Umananda Road and 35E, Elgin Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020, which are two adjacent premises. The respondents are the joint owners of 15 Cottahs 8 Chittaks 29 square feet of land, including a three-storied old dilapidated structure and garage and outhouses constructed thereon, being premises No.3/1, Heysham Road, Police Station Bhowanipore, Kolkata.

3. Since the said land was adjacent to the school premises, the appellant Trust was interested in purchasing the same for the purpose of expansion of the school. Pursuant thereto, the appellant Trust entered into negotiations with the Respondents for purchase of the property, which was orally accepted by the Respondents jointly and severally and the parties agreed that the sale transactions would be completed in the following manner :-

“i) That the defendants will sell the suit property and the plaintiff shall purchase the same on a total consideration price of Rs.4,15,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores fifteen Lakhs only).

ii) That the defendant No.1 shall get a sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and fifty five lakhs) only towards the full and final consideration price for sale of his undivided 1/3rd share in the suit property upon execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of his undivided share “in the suit property.

iii) That the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 shall jointly get a sum of Rs.l,30,000,/- (Rupees On Crore and Thirty Lakhs) only towards the full and final consideration price for sale of their undivided 1/3rd share in the suit property upon execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance in respect of their undivided share in the suit property. iv) That the defendant Nos. 4,5 and 6 shall jointly get a sum of Rs.78,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy eight Lakhs) only towards the full and final consideration price for sale of their undivided 3/15th share in the suit property , , upon execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance in respect of’ their undivided share in the suit property. v) That the defendant Nos.7 and 8 shall jointly get a sum of, Rs.52,00,000/- (Rupees fifty two lakhs)only towards the full and final consideration price for sale of their undivided 2/15th share in the suit property upon execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance in respect of their ‘undivided share in the suit property.”

4. It appears that on account of an interim order of status-quo passed in a First Appeal filed by one of the co-sharers, no written agreement for sale was entered into, but the talks of sale proceeded to an extent, where the Respondents made over certified copies of their title deeds to the appellant Trust in order to establish their right, title and interest over the suit property. Thereafter, in terms of the oral agreement which had been finalised between the parties, separate draft Deeds of Conveyance were sent by the appellant to the respondents in respect of their undivided shares In the suit property for their approval. It also appears that it was the further case of the appellant that they had been informed by the respondents jointly and severally that when the appellant was ready with the consideration amount, appropriate steps would be taken to get the order of status quo vacated to enable the parties to complete the transaction by executing and registering the several Deeds of Conveyance, drafts whereof had already been forwarded to the respondents. It is on such account that the order of status quo was vacated by the Court of 8th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1787

2009(8) Supreme 450SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAltamas Kabir, and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.M/s. Julien Educational Trust — AppellantversusSourendra Kumar Roy & Ors. — RespondentsCivil Appeal Nos. 8021-8082 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C)Ngs:19619-20 of 2008)Decided on : 2-12-2009

2009(8) Supreme 450
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
M/s. Julien Educational Trust — Appellant
versus
Sourendra Kumar Roy & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8021-8082 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C)Ngs:19619-20 of 2008)
Decided on : 2-12-2009