SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Cal) 34

T.P.MUKHERJI
DHANESWAR CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
SUBODH KUMAR SETT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.S.RAY, SUBODH CHANDRA BASAK, TARAKNATH MULLIQ

T. P. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal at the instance of the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by a Subordinate Jude at Howrah in a suit for recovery of rent for the period Bhadra 1363 to Sravan 1366 B. S. The plaintiff's case was that they are the landlords to the extent of a one-third share in the property in suit and the defendants are the tenants under them and the pro forma defendants 2 to 10.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the defendants, it was claimed that the plaintiffs have no interest in the property in view of the vesting of the same in the State of West Bengal under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. A further objection to the plaintiffs' claim that was urged before me was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to realise the rent in their one-third share as claimed in view of the fact that there was no contract with them to pay them one-third share of the rent, nor did the plaintiffs ever realise from the defendants rent in their alleged one-third share.

( 3 ) THE rent is claimed at Rs. 7 per month and, according to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to Rs. 233. 2/3 paise per month out of that from the defendants. The defendants ch










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top