Back
KAUSIK CHANDA
Shyam Sundar Paul – Appellant
Versus
Goutam Poddar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kausik Chanda, J.
The petitioner challenges a judgment and order dated March 17, 2020, passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri, reversing an order dated May 27, 2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Title Suit No.147 of 2010, allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘the Code’, in short).
2. In this judgment, the parties have been referred to in terms of their status as described in the plaint.
3. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for decree of khas possession after eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs contended, inter alia, that they are the legal heirs of Dinesh Chandra Poddar, since deceased. The said Dinesh Chandra Poddar purchased a plot of land from Khitish Chandra Dey in the names of his two minor brothers, Dhiren Chandra Poddar and Radha Gobinda Poddar, and constructed a house on the said land. Dhiren and Radha Gobinda returned back to their parents in East Pakistan and started to reside there permanently. In the year 1970, during the war between Pakistan and Bangladesh, D
The determination of ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property is irrelevant at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11.
A suit claiming rights in property cannot be dismissed at the threshold without a trial based on arguments of benami ownership as these require evidence to substantiate claims.
A suit based on a Benami transaction instituted after the commencement of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, is barred by law, regardless of when the transaction occurred. Courts must l....
where a cloud is raised over the plaintiffs title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy. Where the plaintiff....
Plaint not rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where averments disclose cause from challenge to recent mutations/sales based on alleged wrong entries post pre-statute tenancy relinquishment; jurisdi....
The prohibition against suits concerning benami transactions under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions Act is applicable, and such provisions must be evaluated within the context of the law's ena....
Section 4 (2) bars a claim or defence permitting "real owner" of such property and has been held from saying that property is benami.
The court held that the rejection of the plaint was improper as the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the property did not qualify as benami under the exceptions provided in the Benami Transactions....
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
