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

1963 Supreme(All) 180

V.G.OAK, SATISH CHANDRA
REOTI SARAN – Appellant
Versus
HARGU LAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.BANERJEE, JAGDISH SVARUP, K.C.Agarwala


OAK, J.

( 1 ) THE short point for consideration in this special appeal is whether tenancy rights are extinguished, when a tenant purchases his landlords property.

( 2 ) REOTI Saran, plaintiff filed a suit against Hargu Lal defendant on these allegations. The dispute relates to certain shops. On 2-7-1942 the plaintiff and his brothers sold the shops in dispute to hargulal, defendant. The same day the parties entered into a written agreement, under which hargulal promised to reconvey the property to the vendors on condition that the vendors paid the price within a period of eight years. In pursuance of that agreement dated 2-7-1942, the plaintiff and his brothers paid up the price on 21-12-46, and repurchased the property from Hargu Lal defendant. There was partition between the plaintiff and his brothers. As a consequence of that partition, the shops in dispute came to the share of Reoti Saran plaintiff. Although the property was purchased from the defendant, the defendant declined to vacate the shops. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit against Hargulal defendant to recover possession over the shops. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 400 as damages for wrongful occupation from
















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