DILIP KUMAR SUR Vs. INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs.40,800/- as damages as alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint or in the alternative an enquiry into damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for an amount so found due. The original plaintiff Prasanta Kumar Sur was the owner of a portion of a premises 83, Bagmari Road, Calcutta. The defendant is a Limited Company. On 4th February 1941 the said plaintiff, Prosanta Kumar Sur executed a conveyance in favour of the defendant in respect of the said property and the defendant by an agreement dated 10th February 1941 contracted to reconvey the said property to the plaintiff Prosanta Kumar Sur on the latter paying a sum of Rs.10,001/- within two years from the date of the agreement. Pursuant to the said agreement the plaintiff Prosanta Kumar Sur offered to purchase the said property but the defendant refused to perform the defendant's part of the agreement. On 10th June 1943 Prosanta Kumar Sur instituted a suit against the defendant being Title Suit No. 44 of 1943 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas for specific performance of the contract for resale. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 16th May 1950. An appeal was preferred and on 26th May 1954 the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was allowed on appeal.

(2.) On 19 June 1954 the Plaintiff, Prosanto Kumar Sur deposited the sum of Rs.10,001/- in Court under the direction of the Court. But the defendant failed to execute the conveyance. On 28 June 1955 the Court executed the conveyance and on 18 July 1955 the conveyance was registered.

(3.) It is alleged in the plaint that the property forming subject matter of the suit had been requisitioned under the Defence of India Act on or about 4 February 1942 and was fetching a monthly compensation with effect from 4 February 1942. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant derived from the said property an income amounting to Rs.40,800/- between the months of December 1942 on which date the defendant refused to execute the conveyance and 28 June 1955 when the conveyance was executed. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff would have received the said income instead of the defendant had not the defendant refused to execute the conveyance and that plaintiff became entitled to the said damages consequent to the judgment on appeal dated 26th May 1964.