HERAMBA CHANDRA MAITRA Vs. JYOTISH CHANDRA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in question in this suit was originally owned by one Bolai Chand Sinha who had two sons Sarat and Purna. The plaintiffs in this suit are in effect the Brahmo Somaj Education Society, a Society incorporated under Act 21 of 1860. The defendants are the sons and administrators of the estate of Sarat and certain mortgagees from them. By a deed dated 27 May 1914 the representatives of the estate of Sarat leased to certain persons on behalf of the City College institution, a society registered under Act 21 of 1860, a certain portion of property which belonged to Bolai. It appears that the two branches of Bolai's family had come to a partition and that the portion of the property now in question which belongs to Sarat's branch is the southern portion of which the present description is 102/2 Amherst Street,

(2.) The deed by its operative portion granted a perpetual lease at a certain monthly rent of the property belonging to Sarat's branch. There was a covenant that the lessees should within five years from the date of the deed at the cost and charges of the Society erect in a substantial and workmanlike manner on the demised land and on the adjoining land belonging to Puma's branch one or more good and substantial building or buildings suitable for the carrying on therein of the educational work of the said Society and would expend on that behalf a sum not loss than Rs. 1,00,000. The deed further provided that the lessees should be entitled at any time after obtaining a certificate of the completion of the buildings covenanted to be erected by the lessees to give the lessors notice in writing that they would purchase the demised land at the price of Rs. 83,653-5-4 and the lessors covenanted that thereupon, and on payment to them of the said price but not otherwise and simultaneously on payment to the said Purna Chandra, Sinha of the sum of Rs. 1,03,346-10-8 as the price of the adjoining land they would convey and transfer to the lessees the said demised land with the buildings and fixtures thereon and the lessee's reversion thereof or thereon expectant upon the demise including all rights, moneys or minerals free from encumbrances to hold the same unto the lessees in fee simple for ever subject to certain restrictive covenants. Now, it appears from the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves that in February 1923 they exercised their option to purchase the property comprised in this deed and they also exercised similar option under the deed which had been entered into between themselves and Purna. It appears further that in the same month they caused draft conveyances to be prepared and sent to the two lessors. Thereupon it is equally clear that neither Sarat's branch nor Purna were willing to convey the properties in terms of their covenants and the present suit was instituted to enforce specific performance of the agreement to convey the property. The present Suit is No. 1324 of 1930. and a similar suit, being Suit No. 1322 of 1930, was brought by the same plaintiffs against Purna.

(3.) As regards what has happened in the suit against Purna, there is a great paucity of information in the documents, but no decree has been obtained so far in that suit.