PARUL BALA ROY Vs. SRINIBASH CHOWMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1938, the appellant Parul Bala Roy Choudhury purchased from the Calcutta Improvement Trust a plot of land No. 881 of Scheme No. 33 covering an area of 5 cottas 13 chataks & 25 sq. ft. While she was the owner of the whole of the plot, she submitted a building plan for sanction by the Calcutta Corporation. The plan was sanctioned by the Corporation on 15-5-1939, This plot viz: 381 is a corner plot abutting on two 40ft. wide streets made by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The greater length of the plot is north to south. One face of the plot, namely, the northern one, abuts on one 40 ft. road & west face of the plot on the other 40ft. road. The plan which was submitted for sanction & which was sanctioned by the Corporation showed for the purpose of the building the frontage of the plot to be on the northern road. An open space was left at the farthest end opposite to this road & at the back of the proposed building, that is to say, the open land was shown to be the southern part of plot No. 381. This open space was 87ft. & odd wide from north to south.

(2.) After obtaining this sanction, the appellant sold the southern portion of plot No. 381 to the respondents. The area so sold was 2 cottas 2 chattaks 8 sq. ft. & it was 33 ft. north to south, with the result that the open back space which was retained by the vendor at the back of her proposed building on her own site was 4 ft. wide. We are using these figures for the purpose of convenience, for in fact the open space so retained by the vendor was 4 ft. wide, at some places & 4ft. 6 inches in others & the plot sold to the respondents was 33 ft. wide at some places & 33 ft. 5 inches at other places. But that is not very material. We only mention these details in order to be more accurate.

(3.) After the sale, the respondents submitted a plan for building upon the site so purchased by them. The Corporation refused to sanction that plan, one of the grounds being that the building proposed by the respondents had utilised a portion of the open ground, a portion of which had been shown in the plan sanctioned in favour of the appellant on 15 5-1939, to be the back space of her proposed building.