9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit maintainability under Section 156 of the C.I. Act, 1911 2. Suit limitation under the Law of Limitation 3. Plaintiff entitlement to relief claimed 4. Plaintiff performance of obligation in conveyance completion 5. Plaintiff claim bar under waiver and acquiescence principles 6. Additional reliefs for the plaintiff Analysis: 1. The suit involves specific performance of an agreement for the sale of three plots of land. The main contention is whether the suit is maintainable under Section 156 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The defendant argues that non-service of a statutory notice renders the suit liable for dismissal. The plaintiff argues that notice is not required as the agreement is independent of the Act. The court holds that notice was required to be served, and substantial compliance was done by the plaintiff. 2. Regarding the limitation of the suit, the defendant claims that the suit is time-barred as it was filed years after the agreement. The plaintiff argues that the suit falls within the limitation period as there was no fixed time for conveyance execution. The court finds the suit not barred by limitation due to the continuous breach by the defendant in not providing physical possession. 3. The court directs the defendant to execute and register the conveyance within three months. The issue of physical possession is disputed, leading the court to appoint a Special Officer to ascertain the actual possession status of the properties. The court emphasizes the importance of physical possession following acquisition and seeks a report from the Special Officer on the possession details. 4. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, the significance of limitation periods in legal actions, and the necessity of physical possession in property transactions. The court's detailed analysis of each issue provides clarity on the legal aspects involved in the case and ensures a comprehensive resolution of the dispute between the parties.
|
