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

1954 Supreme(Cal) 96

R.P.MOOKERJEE, RENUPADA MUKHERJEE
BAIJNATH – Appellant
Versus
KSHETRAHARI SARKAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ATUL CHANDRA GUPTA, SYAMA CHARAN MITTER, SYAMADAS BHATTACHARYA

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit for specific performance or a contract to lease out certain immovable properties described in the schedule of the plaint by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was contested in the Trial Court by the defendant, and dismissed, and so the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The facts of the case will appear from the body of the judgment.

( 2 ) BEFORE coming to the matters which are really in controversy between the parties, it will be useful to set out the following fact about which there is no dispute. Defendant Kshetra Hari Sarkar, since deceased, was the owner of municipal premises Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15, Chingrihatta Lane, within police station Beliaghatta in the close suburbs of Calcutta. These premises comprise an area of about 20 bighas of land with a two storied building upon a portion. The rest of the land comprises mainly vacant land with three tanks and some tinroofed structures near the entrance gate. For reasons known to himself and not disclosed by evidence defendant Kshetra Hari wanted to give a long, term of lease of the premises on suitable terms, and for th



























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