SHAKUNTALA PANDIYA Vs. RUSSEL ESTATE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sakhir Chand Dhawan filed the instant suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale entered into by him with the Defendant No. 1 in respect of two apartments in premises No. 7/1, Russel Street, Kolkata- 700071. Apparently Sakhir Chand Dhawan settled with the Defendant No. 1. Seven persons claiming to be agreement holders in respect of different flats at the said premises applied for transposition and/or addition of party to the suit in the category of plaintiffs, as the case of the individual party required such party to do. Such application was allowed. Seven additional persons became plaintiffs in the suit filed by Sakhir Chand Dhawan.

(2.) The transposed plaintiffs sought specific performance of the respective agreements against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They claimed that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not make over possession of the respective flats to which they are entitled to.

(3.) The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the prayers. They contended that, the scope of the suit filed by Sakhir Chand Dhawan did not permit any other agreement holder to have specific performance of their agreement. They also contended that, the claims of the transposed plaintiffs were barred by the laws of limitation.