REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BISWANATH DAS Appellant

V/S

Keshab Dubey And Ors Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN MARTAND PANDHARINATH CHAUDHARI V. RADHABAI KRISHNARAO DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
BALRAJ TANEJA-VS.-SUNIL MADAN [REFERRED TO]
HEMANTA MONDAL-VS.-SRI GANESH CHANDRA NASKAR [REFERRED TO]
GURBAKHSH SINGH V. GURDIAL SINGH AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
LAHORE HIGH COURT IN KIRPA SINGH V. AJAIPAL SINGH AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
DIVISION BENCH OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN BHAGWAN DASS V. BHISHAN CHAND AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
ALSON MOTORS-VS.-SH. RAJESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MAYAWANTI VS. KAUSHALYA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHEELCHAND VS. PRAKASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
VIDHYADHAR VS. MANKIKRAO [REFERRED TO]
KONDIBA DAGADU KADAM VS. SAVITRIBAI SOPAN GUJAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR AGARWAL VS. THAWAR DAS DEAD [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH DEAD VS. RAM SINGH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
C A SULAIMAN VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VS. MANIK ROY [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK VS. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR [REFERRED TO]
VIMLESH KUMARI KULSHRESTHA VS. SAMBHAJIRAO [REFERRED TO]
SEENIVASAN VS. PETER JEBARAJ [REFERRED TO]
GURUSWAMY NADAR VS. P LAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
RANGAMMAL VS. KUPPUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
SHANKER SINGH VS. NARINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
C N RAMAPPA GOWDA VS. C C CHANDREGOWDA DEAD BY LRS [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. VIRENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
GULLA KHARAGJIT CARPENTER VS. NARSINGH NANDKISHORE RAWAT [REFERRED TO]
SANWARMAL GOENKA VS. SOUMYENDRA CHANDRA GOOPTU [REFERRED TO]
SEBASTIAO LUIS FERNANDES (DEAD) VS. K.V.P.SHASTRI (DEAD) [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE TPT CORPN. VS. BAJRANG LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIVAS VYAS AND ORS. VS. H. SRINIVASA BHATI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case culminating in this Second Appeal are briefly as follows.

(2.) One Binoy Krishna Pramanick (defendant no. 1 in the suit) was the owner of premises no. 84 Surya Sen Street, Calcutta. One Raghunath Dubey (the original plaintiff) was a tenant in respect of a coal shop at the said premises, measuring about 1 cottah 3 chittaks at a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-, which in course of time was increased to Rs. 30/-. Raghunath filed a suit against Binoy and one Sunil Kumar Biswas being Title Suit No. 95 of 1979 before the Learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah. Raghunath's case was that Binoy through Sunil who acted as the broker, had entered into an agreement for sale of the said shop room of which Raghunath was a tenant for a sum of Rs. 7125/- (calculated @ Rs. 6000/- per cottah). Raghunath claimed specific performance of such agreement. The present appellant was added as the defendant no. 3 in the suit in view of his claim that a sale deed dated 16 February, 1981 (Exhibit-C) had been executed by Binoy in which Sunil was a confirming party, in his favour in respect of the same shop room which was the subject matter of the suit. The learned Munsif by his judgment and order dated 23 July, 1988 passed a decree for specific performance in favour of Raghunath. The learned Court also observed that the sale deed executed by Binoy in favour of the present appellant (hereinafter called 'Biswanath') is collusive and void.

(3.) Biswanath preferred an appeal from the said decree of the Trial Court being Title Appeal No. 330 of 1988. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal Raghunath died and his legal heirs being the present respondent nos. 1 to 4 were brought on record. By its judgment and order dated 20 February, 1995, the Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal by Biswanth.

Click here to view full judgment.

BISWANATH DAS Vs. KESHAB DUBEY & ORS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address