SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(Cal) 16

B.N.BANERJEE
KATIP BIBI – Appellant
Versus
FAKIR CHANDRA GHOSH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ADITYA NARAYAN RAY, Amarendra Nath Mitra, KAMJIT MOOKERJEE, PRODYAT KUMAR BANERJI, SATYA SANTI MUKHERJI

B. N. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant before me.

( 2 ) THE suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was one for specific performance of a contract of re-conveyance of the disputed property.

( 3 ) THE facts which are not disputed before me, may he summarised as hereinafter appearing. On 23-5-1923, one Rostam Ali conveyed to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 agricultural land measuring 5. 22 acres, for a consideration of Rs. 1299/ -. Only two days thereafter, on 25-5-1923, there was an agreement between the vender. Rostam Ali, and the purchaser, the prede-cessor-in-interest of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for re-conveyance of the property either to Rostam Ali or to his heirs or legal representatives, if only the consideration money was repaid either by Rostam Ali or by his heirs in the month of Chaitra of any year subsequent to the year 1333 B. S. There was a further condition in the said agreement that even if Rostam Ali and his heirs failed to repay the consideration money in one payment, even then the purchaser would re-convey such area of the land as would be proportionate to the amount paid by either Rostam Ali or his heirs. Rostam











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top