KABARI PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHRIMATI ILA BASU & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-744
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 24,2012

KABARI PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Shrimati Ila Basu And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MAHARAJ SINHA,J. - (1.) After considering the issues suggested on behalf of the defendants and the plaintiff, the following issues are framed:- 1. Was the lease dated 10 August 1951 referred to in paragraph 2 of the plaint determined as alleged in paragraph 2 of the written statement? 2. Did the persons mentioned in paragraphs 4 of the plaint become co-owners of premises No.8A, Burdwan Road, Calcutta as alleged in paragraph 4 of the plaint? 3. Did the original defendant No.9 become a tenant under the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 as alleged in paragraph 5 of the plaint? 4. (a) Did the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 assign the un-expired term of the lease dated 10 August 1951 to the defendant No.8? (b) Did the original defendant No.9 become a tenant under the defendant No.8 as alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint? 5. (a) Did the original defendant No.9 enter into a contract in writing to purchase the premises as alleged in paragraphs 6(a) and (d) of the written statement? (b) Did the original defendant No.9 continue in possession of the premises in part performance of the contract dated 21 September 1978 and act in furtherance of the same as alleged in paragraphs 6(f) and (g) of the written statement? (c) Had the original defendant No.9 and after him, have his substituted defendants always been and are ready and willing to perform their part of the said contract as alleged in paragraph 6(q) of the written statement?
(2.) Did the plaintiff purchase the said premises with notice of the said contract dated 21 September 1978 while the same was in force as alleged in paragraphs 6(i) and (j) of the written statement? (a) Did the plaintiff become the absolute owner of the premises as alleged in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the plaint? (b) Were the deeds of conveyance mentioned in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaint validly executed as alleged in paragraph 6(i) of the written statement?
(3.) Is the plaintiff debarred from enforcing against the original defendant No.9 or the substituted defendants any right in respect of the premises under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as alleged in paragraph 6(r) of the written statement?;


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