BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Gopal Chandra Mondal – Appellant
Versus
Durgadas Rakshit – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Judgment and decree dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Bankura in Title Appeal No.97 of 2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 7th June, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Bankura in Title Suit No.53 of 1993 is under challenge in the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter 'the CPC').
2. One Amulya Ratan Mandal, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants filed Title Suit No.53 of 1993 praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents asserting the following facts:-
3. One Srinath Rakhit and others were the original owners of plot No.1073 of mouza Jhantipahari in the District of Bankura. Srinath instituted Title Suit No.125 of 1926 for partition of his share against his co-sharers. The said suit was decreed by the learned subordinate judge, Additional Court, Bankura. By virtue of the decree passed in the said partition suit, Srinath exclusively became the owner of 9 bighas, 6 kathas and 9 chataks of land. Srinath died sometimes prior to 1950 leaving behind only married daugh
Darshan Singh & Ors vs Gujjar Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors
Godavari Lakshminarasamma vs Godavari Rama Brahman And Ors. reported in AIR 1950 Mad 680
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan reported in AIR 2009 SC 103
Ramlal & Anr. vs Phagua & Ors reported in (2006) 1 SCC 168
Rubiren Engineering Corporation vs. Abhoy Singh Surana & Ors
Usha Ghosh vs. Rabindranath Das reported in AIR 2005 Cal 190
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.