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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 270

Amal Kanti Bhattacharji
Sri Becharam Das – Appellant
Versus
Sri Purna Chandra Das – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Santimay Panda for the appellant
Tapan Kumar Dutta for the respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against an appellate decree passed by the District Judge of Howrah reversing the judgment of the trial court. The sole question raised in the Courts below was if a person claiming to be a co-sharer in some immovable property is evitable as a licensee when he fails to prove his alleged share in the said property. The facts of the case out of which the appeal arose in the lower appellate court may be briefly stated as follows:

2. The plaintiff-appellant Becharam Das filed a suit in the trial court for eviction of the defendants-respondents from the suit property i.e. two rooms of premises Do. 13/14 Joy Narayan Babu Anauda Dutta Lane alleging that they were illegally possessing those rooms after entering the same on the basis of permission given in a previous suit. Previously a partition suit was filed by the plaintiff's uncle one Jogendra' Nath Das claiming one fifth share in the aforesaid premises. The basis of his claim was that the premises in question each belonged to his father Brajonath Das who died leaving five sons inheriting one fifth share. The plaintiff's mother and his other uncles were defendants in the said partition suit. The said suit wa

























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