Back
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Dipsikha Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kanti Basu And Sabita Basu – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents instituted a suit bearing Title Suit No.252 of 1998 against the predecessors of the defendant/appellant, in the 2ndCourtof Civil Judge, Senior Division at Barasat, District- North 24 Parganas for declaration that five documents dated August, 1993, purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1, are invalidated, inoperative, illegal and void in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiffs and that the possession of the ground floor flat of the said premises under cover of the said documents by the defendants is unauthorised and illegal, a decree of khas possession declaring the defendants as trespassers, for permanent injunction and mesne profits.
2. The said suit was contested by the defendant no.1 Smt. Dipsikha Chakraborty (the present appellant no.1) by filing a written statement, thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint.
3. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Judge dismissed the said suit on contest without costs. Being thus aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal bearing Title appeal no.62 of 2005, which was ultimately allowed on contest
The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-applicability of the 1993 Act and the 2012 Notification to the property transfer dispute, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
It will not be lawful for a tenant to sublet or to give on license whole or any part of premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein.
The assignment of tenancy rights under the guise of business transfer is unlawful unless it meets specific legal criteria, emphasizing genuine intent to continue the original business.
The court affirmed that ownership established through tenancy certificates prevails over claims of possession based on unproven agreements or wills, emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling statutory ....
A second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is restricted to substantial questions of law. Appellate courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute factual findings unless the lower court's ....
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
