SURESH CHANDRA DEY Vs. JNANENDRA NATH BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It arises out of a suit for specific performance at the instance of the Plaintiff Respondent.

(2.) The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, who directed Defendant No. 1 to execute the kobala in respect of the disputed property (B schedule land), forming the western portion of the entire property described in Schedule A.

(3.) On appeal, the said decree was modified by affirming the decree for specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff but altering it to a decree in respect of the A schedule land minus Schedule B and directing Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to execute the kobala in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of Defendant No. 2 and father of Defendant No. 3. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below is that Defendant No. 2 who, also, along with Defendant No. 1 got the kobala in respect of the disputed A schedule land from the original owner, was merely a name -lender, the real purchaser being Defendant No. 1. The concurrent finding of both the Courts, further, is that Defendant No. 3, who appears to be a subsequent purchaser from Defendant No. 1, was, also a mere name -lender or, in any event, not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The contract, alleged by the Plaintiff, has been held to have been proved by both the Courts below.