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

1978 Supreme(Cal) 156

SALIL KUMAR DATTA
DHURJATI MOHAN DAS – Appellant
Versus
BALAI CHANDRA DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GURUPRASAD GHOSH, SOURENDRA PRASAD ROY CHOUDHURY, SOURENDRAN PROSAD GHOSH

SALIL KUMAR DATTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an appellate order dated 25th Aug. , 1967, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midna-pore, affirming the order of the learned Munsif dated 12-11-66 in a proceeding under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. It appears that the petitioners are landlords in respect of the disputed property held originally by the opposite party No. 2 as tenant. He sold his interest to opposite party No. 1 by a registered conveyance dated 19-12-55 who in his turn sold the suit property to the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 by a conveyance dated 12-12-58. It may be stated here that the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of opposite party No, 2, the tenant. The petitioners' case is that they were not made aware of these transfers which were fraudulently kept back from them and their father who was their pre-decessor-in-interest and only in the month of April/may, 1965, opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 approached them for issue of rent receipts in respect of the disputed property in their name stating that they had acquired these lands by purchase. The petitioners thereafter were put to enquiry and became







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