JOY PRAKASH LAW Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR RATHI & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-59
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 11,2020

Joy Prakash Law Appellant
VERSUS
Rajendra Kumar Rathi And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction as also recovery of possession and damages, the plaintiff seeks interim protection.
(2.) In the suit, the plaintiff assails instrument dated March 3, 1971 as rectified on April 26, 1971, instrument dated December 14, 1973, instrument dated August 30, 2002 and the instrument dated September 25, 2017 as being vitiated by undue influence and, therefore, null and void.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the father of the plaintiff was the owner of an immovable property. The immovable property comprises of about 38 cottahs of land. It is located at a prime part of Kolkata. The father of the plaintiff executed a deed of lease in favour of the defendant no. 1 for 62 years in respect of 30 cottahs out of 38 cottahs on March 3, 1971. Such lease was supposed to come to an end on February 28, 2033 by efflux of time. The lease rental was a paltry sum of Rs.1,000/- which was to be increased periodically. Given the location and the area of the property, the lease rental was dismal. He submits that, the lease was for 30 cottahs of land although the land comprised of 38 cottahs of land. There is no document with regard to 8 cottahs of land. However, the defendants are in occupation of the entirety of the 38 cottahs of land. He submits that, there is a deed of rectification dated April 26, 1971 executed by the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff gifted the property in favour of the plaintiff on December 18, 2000. However, there was an issue with regard to the stamp duty payable on the deed of gift. After the father of the plaintiff executed the deed of gift and presented the same for registration, the father of the plaintiff purported to execute a deed of extension of the original deed of lease for a further period of 20 years on August 30, 2002. The father of the plaintiff did not have any right to execute such deed as the right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property concerned stood vested with the plaintiff by virtue of the execution of the deed of gift dated December 18, 2000.;


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