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

1986 Supreme(Cal) 344

AMAL KANTI BHATTACHARJI, SANKARI PRASAD DAS GHOSH
BYOMKESH BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
NANI GOPAL BANIK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.B.Majmuder, BHARATI CHATTERJI, KAZI MOHAMMAD ALI

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal against a decree for specific performance of a contract to sell land, Mr. Ali, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has urged that, firstly, there was no offer from and on behalf of the defendant-appellant to sell land to the plaintiff respondent, and that, secondly, even if there was any such offer, there was in law no acceptance thereof by and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and Mr. Ali has accordingly urged that the learned Judge was wrong in decreeing the suit.

( 2 ) IT appears from the evidence on record that the plaintiff-respondent by his letter, Ext. 1, to the defendant-appellant offered to purchase the disputed land at Rs. 3000/- per Katha. This offer does not appear to have been accepted by the defendant who by his reply, Ext. 8, stated that he had already received higher offers at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per Katha and the plaintiff was therefore required to inform him if he was agreeable to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 3,300/- per katha and, if so agreeable, to send Rs. 3000/- towards advance. The plaintiff replied by Ext. 2 enclosing therewith a bank draft for Rs. 3000/- and stating therein that h













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