In the award there was a clause to the following effect We further find and report with the companysent of and approval of the parties that any party in case of disposing or transferring any portion of his share, shall offer preference to the other party, that is each party shall have the right of pre emption between each other.
Under the award, two of the four blocks, A, B, C D, into which the properties were divided by the arbitrators, namely, blocks A and C, were allotted to Tulshidas and the remaining two blocks, B and D were allotted to Kishorilal.
On April 22, 1942, Kishorilal sold, by the Kobala Ex.
Thereafter, on August 20, 1941 Tulshidas sold his A block to one Nagendra Nath Ghosh.
This was done after Kishorilals refusal to pre empt the same in spite of Tulshidass offer to him in terms of he pre emption clause.
1 , his two blocks, B and D to Rati Raman Mukherjee and others.
14,000 for the purpose of preempting the suit property and both the defendants were directed to execute and register a Kobala in plaintiffs favour within 15 days of the deposit by the plaintiffs.
On April 7, 1953 while the suit was pending in the trial companyrt, defendant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 11, 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
Accordingly a decree was granted to the plaintiffs asking them to deposit within one month a sum of Rs.
Two brothers, Tulshidas Chatterjee and Kishorilal Chatterjee owned certain properties land and building on Paharpur Road within Mouza Garden Reach, Khidderpore, in the suburbs of Calcutta.
On June 21, 1946, the Mukherjees in their turn sold the two blocks B D to the plaintiffs by the Kobala Ex.
1 and on December 2, 1952, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the said purchaser defendant No.
In the year 1938 Kishorilal sued for partition of the properties and eventually the matter was referred to arbitration.
for preempting his aforesaid purchase.
1 and 2.
On the companyclusion of the trial the Subordinate Judge held that the companyenant of pre emption was binding upon the defendants who had numberice of that clause and plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the night of pre emption.,
I sold the disputed property block A to defendant No.
1 2 and calling upon them to execute a companyveyance in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of the actual companysideration paid for the property in suit.
The defendants took the matter in appeal to the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate fudge.
100 of 1952 decreeing the suit for pre emption in favour of the plaintiffsrespondents Nos.
Two companymon passages marked as X and Y and a companymon drain Z were kept joint between the parties for their use.
On September 20, 1952 Nagendra Nath Ghosh sold block A to defendant No.
104 of 1954 affirming the judgment and decree dated February 27, 1954 of the Subordinate Judge, Fifth Court, at Alipore District 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.
On December 16, 1940, the arbitrators filed their award on which a final decree was passed on March 15, 1941 in the partition suit.
He further held that the companyenant of preemption was number hit by the rule against perpetuities and was enfor ceable against the assignees of the original parties to the companytract.
109 of 1954.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICATION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated November 18,1959 in First Appeal No.
Bishan Narain and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
609 of 1964.
The plaintiffs thereafter made an application for amendment of the plaint praying for a decree for pre emption against defendants Nos.
C Chatterjee and Sukumar Ghosh, for respondents Nos.
1 and 2.
