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

1981 Supreme(Cal) 203

B.N.MAITRA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Appellant
Versus
SUBIMAL KUMAR MONDAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
GOURI PRASAD MUKHERJEE, Himadri Sankar Majumdar

B. N. MAITRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the disputed land belonged to the minor, Satyendra Nath Patra. The latter's father acted as his guardian and for the benefit of the minor son, sold the disputed property to him on the 7th Dec. , 1953, for Rs. 250/ -. After making the purchase he has been possessing the property. But in the R. S. Khatian there is a wrong entry that the property belongs to his father and that land has vested in the State. The plaintiff's father did not make any purchase, The suit is for an injunction on declaration of the plaintiff's title and for a further declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights is incorrect.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the State of West Bengal. A written statement was filed denying the plaintiff's allegations. It has been stated that defendant No. 2, plaintiff's father, was a big raiyat and he made a Benami purchase. He did not retain the suit-land. That property has vested in the State.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif disbelieved the plaintiff's version in all respects and has held that the plaintiff had no money to make the purchase. That purchase was not a genuine one. The plaintiff was not in possession of the property.












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