Skip to content


Bhoyrub Chunder Surma Roy Vs. Chunder Nath Roy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1884)ILR10Cal250
AppellantBhoyrub Chunder Surma Roy
RespondentChunder Nath Roy and ors.
Cases ReferredBombay Court Panha Khamaji v. Fatta Upaji
Excerpt:
registration act, 1877, section 48 - oral agreement of sale--subsequent sale to third party--notice of prior agreement--rights of purchaser. - .....mr. justice pontifiex used some expressions which might be construed in favour of the appellant's argument, but those expressions were not material for the purposes of the case, because both he and i distinctly decided that no notice was proved.7. the very principle, therefore, upon which mr. justice mitter's judgment proceeds was inapplicable to the case decided by mr. justice pontifex and myself.8. it appears also that mr. justice mitter's view is supported by a decision of the bombay court panha khamaji v. fatta upaji 12 bom. h.c. 179.9. the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We think that this appeal should be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff brought this suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for the purchase of the property, and it was decided by the Court below that he was entitled to a decree as against the defendant No. 4, who with full notice of the agreement, has subsequently bought the property from the other defendants, and had registered his purchase deed.

3. It is contended by the appellant that this decision was wrong. But we find that the very point has been considered by Justices Mitter and Maclean in the case of Solano v. Lala Ram Lal 7 C.L.R. 481 and decided against the appellant's view.

4. Those learned Judges founded their decision upon the general doctrine of equity, which had been previously acted upon in several cases in this Court, and which has been always recognized in England; that notwithstanding the provisions of the Registration Act, a party who purchases, even under a registered deed, with notice of a prior agreement for sale, shall not be allowed to retain the property as against the person claiming under the prior agreement.

5. It has been argued that Mr. Justice Pontipex, in the case of Fuzludeen Khan v. Fakir Mohamed Khan I.L.R. 5 Cal. 336 : 4 C.L.R. 257 has expressed an opinion adverse to that adopted by Justices Mitter and Maclean. But it will be found that the equitable doctrine upon which those learned Judges acted did not apply to the last-mentioned case at all.

6. It is true that in the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Pontifiex used some expressions which might be construed in favour of the appellant's argument, but those expressions were not material for the purposes of the case, because both he and I distinctly decided that no notice was proved.

7. The very principle, therefore, upon which Mr. Justice Mitter's judgment proceeds was inapplicable to the case decided by Mr. Justice Pontifex and myself.

8. It appears also that Mr. Justice Mitter's view is supported by a decision of the Bombay Court Panha Khamaji v. Fatta Upaji 12 Bom. H.C. 179.

9. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //