9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m as may bs prescribed, (c) in default, the Registrar, Original Side of this Court be directed to execute and register such lease in favour of the plaintiff, (d) in the alternative, a decree for ₹ 29,000/- and a further decree for ₹ 1,00,000/- or (e) alternatively, an enquiry into the compensation and a decree for the sum as may be ascertained on such enquiry and other reliefs. 2. The plaintiff's cause of action is materially as follows:-- The defendant is the owner of the said premises No. 2 Auckland Fiance, Calcutta, which includes a plot of land measuring about 4 cottahs 5 chattacks and 7 sq. ft. 3. The plaintiff and the defendant arrived at an agreement on or about the 30th Aug., 1978 for grant of a building lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter avoided the execution of the lease on diverse pretexts, 8. The case of the defendant is that there has been no concluded contract between the parties and that the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance. 9. The defendant alleges that in or about 1978 the parties had negotiations for grant of a building lease by the defendant to the plaintiff of the said plot on inter alia the following terms and conditions:-- (a) The plaintiff could construct a 4 storeyed building on the said plot within 4 years from the date of the contract and the entire second floor containing 2 self-contained flats would be given to the defendant; (b) The lease would be for 50 years certain with an option for renewal for a further period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the said plot wrongfully since the middle of Jan., 1982 and has put up bamboo structures and tin shades thereon and is utilising the same by letting it out for parking of cars. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the said plot and should not be permitted to continue in wrongful possession thereof. 16. In this application of the defendant on a notice dated the 23rd Feb., 1982, inter alia, the following orders have been prayed for:-- (A) A Receiver over the said plot. (b) An injunction restraining the plaintiff from making any or further construction in the said plot till the disposal of the suit. (c) An injunction restraining the plaintiff from parking or allowing the parking of vehicles in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of the said plot since Sept., 1978 without any objection from the defendant and that the defendant did not institute any legal proceedings, for recovery of possession of the said plot. It is contended that the defendant is not entitled to make the application in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. 20. The defendant has affirmed an affidavit on the 1st April, 1982, which has been filed in reply to the said affidavit of the plaintiff, It is, inter alia, stated in this affidavit that the constructions were made by the plaintiff in the said plot only since the middle of Jan., 1982. 21. At the hearing learned counsel reiterated the respective contentions in the pleadings. Documents were brought to the notice of the Court on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this case the plaintiff's action was for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on a particular business within a certain limit in Winchester. On the same day the plaintiff moved for an, interlocutory injunction. The defendant entered appearance and thereafter, gave a notice, for an interlocutory injunction restraining the plaintiff from using the name of the defendant in carrying on the business of the plaintiff. Both the motions were dismissed in the first Court. On an appeal by the defendant Lindley L. J. held that the defendant was not entitled to any interlocutory injunction and observed as follows:-- The question is whether a defendant who is in a hurry is entitled to apply by way of motion in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts it appears that the subject matter of the suit j. e., the said plot, is admittedly in the possession of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that no lease has yet been executed in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not paid the premium nor is paying the rent which is payable according to him. The plaintiff being in possession is enjoying the fruits of the property by collecting parking fees. The defendant has been totally deprived of the use of the said land. 26. Hence, if the defendant had been in possession of the land in dispute the plaintiff would have been entitled to apply for orders restraining the defendant from altering the character of the property. Such a relief would arise out of the plaintiff's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
