TARAK KUMAR MONDAL & ANR Vs. KAILASH NATH DHAR
LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-154
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 18,2012

TARAK KUMAR MONDAL And ANR Appellant
VERSUS
KAILASH NATH DHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Way back in the year 1991, to be precise on May 1991, the plaintiffs instituted this suit against the sole defendant, Sri Kailash Nath Dhar (the defendant, in short) claiming "a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the balance consideration money as per the agreement dated 26 March 1989 to the defendant for the purchase of property as described . of the plaint", "a decree for declaration that the defendant is liable to execute proper deed of sale as per terms of the agreement dated 26 March 1989 in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs on receipt of the balance agreed consideration money of Rs. 3,54,000/- and give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs", "a decree for executing and registering proper deed of sale by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs within the time to be specified by the Hon'ble Court and failing which the said deed be executed and registered according to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 (5) and (6) (a) of the Civil Procedure Code", "a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant as men and agents from executing any sale deed and/or part with possession in respect of the suit premises to any other person or persons excepting the plaintiffs or encumbering the same or in any manner whatsoever", alternatively a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 5,23,600/- inclusive of Rs3,96,000/- being the principal amount paid by the plaintiffs and Rs. 1,27,600/- being the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 26 March 1989 to 26 May 1991, further interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till realization.
(2.) The property which the plaintiffs agreed to buy is a three storied building at premises No. 36, Brindaban Basak Street, Kolkata 700 005 (the property, in short), the full particulars of the said property is set out in Schedule (a) to the plaint.
(3.) The case as made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the plaintiffs intended to buy a portion of the said property at premises No. 36, Brindaban Basak Street, Kolkata 700 005 from the defendant who was and is the sole owner of the said property and the defendant also intended to sell the same to the plaintiffs.;


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