CHHOTALAL HARIRAM Vs. DILIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale and raises a short but an important question for decision. The question so raised is as to whether such a suit abates on the death of the vendor defendant when his legal representative are not brought on record even though subsequent transferees from the vendor are already on record as parties defendants. The question so raised arises on the following facts.

(2.) One Kali Kinkar Chatterji (predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents) instituted the aforesaid suit for specific performance of a contract dated August 16, 1961 of sale against the vendor F.N. Gazdar in respect of premises No. 31, Benaras Road, Howrah (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). While contesting the suit F.N. Gazdar sold the suit property on January 7, 1961 to two persons, Karamshi Walji Patel and Karsan Patel (hereinafter referred to as the Patels). Patels on an application made by them had themselves added as parties' defendants in the suit.

(3.) Principal defendants F.N. Gazdar died on April 7, 1964. On an application made on June 10, 1964, plaintiff Kali Kinkar substituted one S. N. Gazdar in place of the deceased defendant claiming him to be the nephew of the deceased. On an application made on July 7, 1964, the plaintiff brought on record one Amba Devi as in heir and legal representative of the deceased defendant on a claim that she is a sister of the deceased.