A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) ). THE decree of the trial court declared the title of the petitioner in respect of the disputed property negativing the contention of the opposite parties that the petitioner and her deceased mother were mere ostensible owners or Benamdars and the petitioner could recover possession of the property in execution of that decree. The decree, was, however, over-turned by the first Appellate Court and its judgment has thereafter been affirmed by this Court in second appeal in Urmila Dasi v. Probodh Chandra Ghosh (since reported in 89 Cal WN 465, holding that the petitioner and her deceased mother were mere Benamdars of the petitioner's father in respect of the disputed property, which having been duly inherited by his second wife, the opposite party No. 2, could be and was properly conveyed by her to and in favour of the opposite party No. 1. The decree of the trial court in favour of the petitioner having thus been reversed in appeal the opposite party No. 1 applied to the trial Court under S. 144 of the Civil P. C. for restoration of the disputed property to him and the trial court has allowed the same ex parte by its order dt/- 4th March, 1988 and has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document