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

2006 Supreme(Cal) 701

PRATAP KUMAR RAY
BINAPANI KARUI – Appellant
Versus
BHOLANATH KARUI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ABHIJIT BANERJI, BIDYUT BANERJI, JAYANTA KUMAR MONDAL, SHILLA SARKAR

P. K. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1996 and 25th February, 1996 respectively passed by learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court at Howrah in title appeal No. 176 of 1993 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 29th May, 1993 and 5th June, 1993 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Howrah in title suit No. 266 of 1987, which was a suit for eviction of licensee on the ground of termination of licence. The appellant in the second appeal is the defendant of the suit. Appeal was preferred on several grounds, which reads to this effect:

"i. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and also without considering the merits of the case was decreed the suit. "

II. For that the learned lower Appellate Court erred in law by not considering the status of this appellant/defendant.

III. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate properly the exhibit 3, which is the original sale deed dated 70, May 1997 executed by the heirs deceased jogmaya Dutta in favour of Bholanath Karui son of late dukhiram and Jitendra






















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