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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 409

BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE
GOPAL CH. PAUL – Appellant
Versus
AMALA MONDAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sasthi Charan Roy, SUBHRA KAMAL MUKHERJI, Sudhis Das Gupta

BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J.


( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been filed by the judgment-debtor/ petitioner, against the decree-holders/opposite parties against the order dated 21st May, 1986 by which the petitioners application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected, in which the judgment-debtor petitioner prayed for dismissal of the execution case on the ground that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by this Court in Second appeal, is a nullity.

( 2 ) THE decree-holders/opposite parties filed suit against the judgment-debtor/petitioner for eviction alleging that by a registered conveyance the decree-holders-plaintiffs purchased the property in question and that the defendant/judgment-debtor was a monthly tenant-at-will under the predecessor-in-interest of the decree-holders/ opposite parties and that the tenancy was governed originally by the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1948, but because of the subsequent amendment in the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act by the amendment of 1968, the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, having been withdrawn from the Garden Reach area, where the suit premises lie






















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