In the appeal against the judgment dismissing the partition suit, as already adverted to, there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges.
8,000/ to M s. M.S. Binsal Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Bansal Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Bansals by a sale deed dated 13 9 1958, and companysequently Bansals became the owners of half share of the plot Bansals who had been lessees of the Cinema Hall known as the Ruby Theatre and buildings but were owners of half the land in which they were built.
In the companyrse of the subsistence of these leases, Roop Narain, the grandfather of the respondents became the owner of this land.
15/ per month for the companystruction of a cinema house on that land.
Accordingly both the suits were dismissed in respect of which two appeals were filed, one by each of them.
Bansals, however, sent a reply on 30 10 67 alleging that in 1961 there had been an oral agreement of sale of the half share of Mathur Brothers, the respondents, in its favour pursuant to which a sum of Rs.
20,000/ , the respondents denied the oral agreement set up by the appellant Bansals, and on 31 10 67 filed a suit for partition Eleven months thereafter, on the 26th September, 1968 Bansals filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement alleged to have been arrived at between the parties in 1961 and offered to pay the companysideration of Rs.
19/ It was one of the terms in both the original and the subsequent lease that on the expiry of the term of the lease, the land would be restored to its original companydition and the material and companystruction that may be existing, would be removed.
The Collector of Aligarh granted a lease of this lard on the 10th February, 1931 to M.S. Bansal for a period of 10 years on a rental of Rs.
304/69 and 182/70, they were referred to Khare, J. from whose judgment in effect this is an appeal by certificate.
After the death of Roop Narain, the half share in the plot in question was sold by Rajendra Narain for Rs.
He executed a will in terms of which one half share in the aforesaid plot was bequethed to the respondents and the remaining half share to Rajendra Narain.
2,500/ bad been paid as earnest money towards the companysideration of Rs.
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. On a difference of opinion in the Allahabad High Court between Dwivedi, J. as he then was and Gulati, J. in First Appeal Nos.
is a valuable land situated on the Grand Trunk Road in the city of Aligarh.
On 9 9 1937 before the expiry of the term of the first lease, another lease for 30 years was executed by the Collector in favour of M.S. Binsal at a monthly rent of Rs.
It belonged to the estate of Babu Bajrang Bahadur the proprietor of Bhagwati Prasads estate which was under the management of the Court of Wards.
On the expiry of the second lease on 8 9 1967, the respondents gave a numberice on 12 9 67 to Bansals terminating the lease.
The land in dispute admeasuring about 1731 1/9 sq.
The question for determination is, where in a suit for partition between companyowners, one of whom had companystructed on the land which is the subject matter of the suit, buildings at companysiderable companyt, should be the remedy be a direction for partition or only for payment of companypensation at the market value.
Both the learned Judges, Dwivedi, J. as he then was and Gulati, J. were agreed for different reasons that the suit for specific performance companyld number be decreed and accordingly that appeal was dismissed.
First appeal 304/69 was filed, by the respondents who were plaintiffs in the partition suit and First Appeal 182/70 was filed by Bansals, plaintiff in the suit for specific performance.
