RAMBARAN PROSAD versus RAM MOHIT HAZRA & ORS.

RAMBARAN PROSAD versus RAM MOHIT HAZRA & ORS.

The covenant for pre-emption is not hit by the rule against perpetuities as it does not create any interest in the property within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and is enforceable against assignees and successors-in-interest of the original parties owing to the absence of contrary intention in the contract language.

Parties
Appellant: Rambaran Prosad; Respondent: Ram Mohit Hazra; Respondent: Others (unspecified)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal by Special Leave From Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Rule Against Perpetuities, Contract Enforceability, Transfer of Property, Partition, Specific Performance
Property Law Contract Law Pre Emption Rule Against Perpetuities Contract Enforceability Transfer of Property Partition Specific Performance

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rambaran Prosad

Appellant

Ram Mohit Hazra

Respondent

Others (unspecified)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal by Special Leave From Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-emption agreement binds successors-in-interest and assignees.
  2. 2 Whether the covenant for pre-emption offends the rule against perpetuities and is void.

Ratio Decidendi

The covenant for pre-emption is not hit by the rule against perpetuities as it does not create any interest in the property within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and is enforceable against assignees and successors-in-interest of the original parties owing to the absence of contrary intention in the contract language.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The decree granting pre-emption to the plaintiffs is affirmed.
  • Plaintiffs entitled to enforce pre-emption against defendants on deposit of the consideration.