SAKINA MOHAMMEDALLY MULLA Vs. SULPHUR REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Short Cause Suit No. 603 of 1977. That suit was filed by the present respondents claiming a decree of specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiffs in the plaint claimed that the defendants are the heirs of late Lalmiya Mulla Amiruddin and Mahomedally Mulla Amiruddin and that the plaintiffs, which is the company incorporated under the Companies Act, had entered into indenture of lease dated 17-1-1962 with the abovenamed Lalmiya Mulla Amiruddin and Mahomedally Mulla Amiruddin, whereby the lease of the land described in the schedule of the agreement of lease dated 17-1-1962 was granted for a term of 99 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiffs was based on Clause (4) of the agreement dated 17-1-1962. Clause (4) of the agreement dated 17-1-1962 reads as under :---

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants raised only one contention before us. He submitted that the plaintiffs had admitted that they have entered into agreement to sell the property to third parties after it is sold to them by the defendants. Relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of (Dave Ramshankar Jivatram v. Bai Kailasgauri), A. I. R. 1974 Gujarat 69, the learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs/company is not going to use the property after its sold to it for the same purpose for which it is being used by the plaintiffs as lessee and as the plaintiffs want to sell the property, specific performance should not have been granted by the learned Single Judge, of the agreement of sale.