AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—In my opinion, the case has been correctly decided by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellant is the lessor and the respondent is the lessee. The appellant gave permision to the respondent to erect certain buildings upon the land, and the lessee entered into a covenant with the lessor which is stated in these terms by the learned Sub. Judge:
The covenant is that if the lessee could wish to sell, he must make the first offer to the lessor, and, if the lessor refused to purchase, then he (the lesee) would be at liberty to sell the property to others, but even then the lessee shall have to pay one-fourth of the consideration.
It appears that the defendant actually sold the properties to a third person without making any offer to the plaintiff. The question is whether the covenant is enforceable as against the defendant.
It has been held in many cases that a covenant for pre-emption, which is unlimited in point of time is void on the ground, that it is obnoxious to the rule against perpetuities and that to test whether a covenant violates the rule against perpetuities we must look not to the particular events which may have actually happened, but to all possible contingencies: see Nabin Chandra, Sarma v. Rajani Chandra Chakrabarti AIR 1921 Cal. must dismiss this appeal with costs.
Allanson, J.
I agree.