KESHARSHYAM CONSTRUCTION P LTD Vs. COMFORT INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 22.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.62 of 2003 by which an application for amendment of the plaint is allowed. The plaintiff/opposite parties initially instituted a suit against the proforma opposite party No.3 herein praying for a decree for declaration that the said proforma opposite party entered into a concluded agreement for sale of the property mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint on the basis of the writings dated 19.04.2003, 29.04.2003 and 05.05.2003 and further declaration that the letter dated 27.08.2003 is null and void and be cancelled and delivered up and a permanent injunction directing the said proforma opposite party No.3 for selling, transferring and alienating the suit property to a third party.

(2.) The facts as it appears from the plaint that one Cecile Lottie Grosser was the owner of the entire premises No.62/11, Bollygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700019 previously known as premises No.8/1, Rainey Park, who died upon publishing his last Will and Testament dated 19.07.1927 bequeathing his properties to his friend namely J.W. Chippendale. The said will was duly probated in matter No.559 of 1944 by the High Court at Calcutta. Upon the death of the said J.W. Chippendale, his wife succeeded to the said estate who subsequently made and published her last will and testament dated 07.09.1968 before her death bequeathing 2/3 parts of the said property to Assembly of God Church and remaining 1/3 portion to St. Paul Cathedral Church, Kolkata. The proforma opposite party No.3 was the administrator appointed in a probate case by the District Delegate at Alipore, in Case No.24 of 1970 who approached the plaintiff/opposite parties for sale of the said property and the various correspondences were made in this regard which constitutes a concluded contract between the parties. It is further alleged in the said plaint that the said proforma opposite party No.3 issued a letter dated 27.08.2003 informing that he is negotiating with the others for sale of the said property.

(3.) During the pendency of the said suit an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken out by the petitioners praying for their addition on the strength of the deed of conveyance dated 14.08.2006 executed by the said proforma opposite party No.3 whereby and whereunder the said premises was sold, transferred and conveyed in their favour.