GOSTHO BEHARI SIRKAR Vs. SURS' ESTATES LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-1960-5-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 12,1960

Gostho Behari Sirkar Appellant
VERSUS
Surs' Estates Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.B.MUKHARJI, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgment and decree of P. G. Mallick J. dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell premises No. 168, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/ -.
(2.) THE learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground first that there was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and secondly that the plaintiff as a purchaser was not acceptable to the defendant vendor. The appellant has attacked the judgment on both the grounds.
(3.) THE case of the respective parties lies within a small compass. The plaintiff appellant's case is that on the 4th January, 1946, an agreement was concluded in Calcutta whereby the plaintiff agreed to buy and the defendant agreed to sell premises No. 168, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, free from encumbrances and subject to the title being found good and marketable for the price of Rs. 1,30,000/ -. The appellant's further case is that it was agreed that a formal document only 'evidencing' the said agreement would be drawn up and executed between the parties. The plaintiff pleads that the defendant company wrongfully and unreasonably revoked the said agreement on the 7th January, 1946 and on the very same day agreed to sell the same premises to the appellant's trade rival. The appellant's case is that the property is very close to premises No. 167C, Bowbazar Street, which was purchased by the plaintiff and his brothers and was being made ready for the purpose of locating the Appellant's .long standing business of jewellery Messrs. M. B. Sirkar and Sons, now carried on by the plaintiff and his brothers in another site nearby. The appellant wanted to purchase the property in suit for the said business, The case of the defendant company is a denial of the fact that there was any agreement on the 4th January, 1946. The defendants' case is that there were only mere negotiations and that there never was any concluded agreement. The defendant admits the agreement of sale of the said premises on the 7th January 1946 with another person by the name of Kanchanlal Sirkar.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.