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

1981 Supreme(Cal) 264

AMITABHA DUTTA
SUKHESH CHANDRA GHOSE – Appellant
Versus
BINDU BASHINI DEBYA – Respondent


AMITABHA DUTTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from the appellate decision of the learned Additional District Judge at Jalpaiguri modifying the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge at Jal-Paiguri in Title Suit No. 13 of 1969 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and raesne profits.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case was that one Keramuddin was the owner of the suit Dremises comprised in holding No. 144, in Ward No. 16 of Siliguri Municipality as described in the schedule to the plaint. He sold the suit premises to Sawarmal Tulsan by a registered deed of sale dated 3-7-1961. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the suit premises from the said Sawarmal Tulsan bv a registered deed of sale dated 22-2-1965 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and became the absolute owner of the same. The pro forma defendant No. 5 was the eldest son of the defendant No. 1 and the defendants Nos, 3 and 4 were the other two sons of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 was the widow of pre-deceased son of the defendant No. 1 Smt. Bindubasini Debi. The pro forma defendant No. 5 as the head of the family of the defendants was a monthly tenant in the suit premises at a rent of Rs. 2






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