R. KEMPRAJ versus M/S. BARTON SON & CO.

R. KEMPRAJ versus M/S. BARTON SON & CO.

Options to renew a lease, even when stipulated as covenants running with the land, do not create an interest in property of the sort contemplated by Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act; thus, the rule against perpetuity does not apply and the renewal clauses are valid.

Parties
Appellant: Kempraj; Respondent: Bartons Son & Co.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated December 20, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 811 of 1965
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rule Against Perpetuity, Lease Renewals, Transfer of Property
Property Law Rule Against Perpetuity Lease Renewals Transfer of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kempraj

Appellant

Bartons Son & Co.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated December 20, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 811 of 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an option given to a lessee to renew the lease every ten years is hit by the rule of perpetuity under Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act

Ratio Decidendi

Options to renew a lease, even when stipulated as covenants running with the land, do not create an interest in property of the sort contemplated by Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act; thus, the rule against perpetuity does not apply and the renewal clauses are valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.