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

1996 Supreme(Cal) 275

ARUN KUMAR DUTTA
SATYENDRA NATH ROY (DECEASED)SUBSTITUTED, ARUNA ROY – Appellant
Versus
CHHABI RANI MUNDRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BADAL CHANDRA SAHA, HARI NARAYAN MUKHERJEE, TAPAS KR.BHATTACHARYA

A. K. DUTTA, J.

( 1 ) -THIS second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29th March, 1993 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 170 of 1989 before him, affirming the agreement and Decree dated 31st July, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 132 of 1986 before him on a grounds made out in the Memorandum of Appeal.

( 2 ) THE relevant Suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent Chhabi Rani Mundra for eviction of the Defendant-Appellant, Satyendra Nath Roy, since deceased, who has been substituted by his legal heirs and representatives on his demise during the pendency of this Appeal, from the suit premises, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint, on ground of reasonable requirement, amongst others. It is contended by the Plaintiff Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) that she became the owner of the suit premises under a Deed of Settlement dated 8th October, 1958 executed by her grand mother Niva Rani Devi (hereinafter referred to as Niva Rani) on her death on 22nd December, 1978. By a letter of Attornment to the Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred














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