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

2001 Supreme(Cal) 639

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY
GORACHAND MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
MALABIKA DUTTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
PUSPENDU BIKASH SAHU, SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJI, SAMIR CHAKRABORTY, Sudhis Das Gupta

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

( 1 ) - The Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10/01/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in title Appeal No. 106 of 1995 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Fourth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 18 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who is the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit premises after vacating the defendant/appellant therefrom. The essential facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly summerised hereinafter. the father of the plaintiff acquired the suit premises by way of gift executed by Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi on 1/09/1952. the said Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi executed deed of gift in respect of the suit property in favour of their nephew, Shankar Banerjee, the father of the plaintiff herein.

( 3 ) PRATIVA Devi, the mother of the defendant/ appellant herein was given life interest for staying in the suit premises by the said deed of gift. In the year 1970, the father of the plaintiff, Shankar Banerjee, died leaving his widow, Pulama Banerjee and his son, Bhaskar and daughter, M



































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