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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 185

P.N.MUKHERJEE
NARESH CHANDRA GUHA – Appellant
Versus
RAM CHANDRA SAMANTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Chandidas Roy Chowdhury, Ram Krishna Pal, Sourindra N.Ghose

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS rule has been obtained by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for, inter alia, recovery of a certain sum of money, paid by him as earnest money in connection with an agreement for sale of land. In the suit, there was also a claim for interest by way of damages. The suit has been dismissed by the learned 'subordinate Judge, exercising powers under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and in this Rule, the plaintiff has challenged the said dismissal.

( 2 ) THE material facts lie within a short compass and they are as follows : On March 24, 1948, the defendant-opposite parties executed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner a 'baina' or agreement for sale, Ex. 1, in respect of certain lands and received from him (the plaintiff) a sum of Rs. 501/- as and by way of earnest money. Later on, the parties differed as to the extent and scope of the subject-matter of the said 'baina', Ex. 1 with the result that the transaction eventually fell through. Thereupon, the plaintiff demanded back the earnest money and, the defendants having refused to, return the same, the plaintiff instituted the present suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff's main allegations wer





















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