GORACHAND MUKHERJEE Vs. MALABIKA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10/01/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in title Appeal No. 106 of 1995 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Fourth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.18 of 1992.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who is the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit premises after vacating the defendant/appellant therefrom. The essential facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly summerised hereinafter. the father of the plaintiff acquired the suit premises by way of gift executed by Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi on 1/09/1952. the said Gurupada Halder and Sukumari Devi executed deed of gift in respect of the suit property in favour of their nephew, Shankar Banerjee, the father of the plaintiff herein.

(3.) Prativa Devi, the mother of the defendant/ appellant herein was given life interest for staying in the suit premises by the said deed of gift. In the year 1970, the father of the plaintiff, Shankar Banerjee, died leaving his widow, Pulama Banerjee and his son, Bhaskar and daughter, Malabika. Pulama and Bhaskar transferred their shares in the suit property by executing a sale deed in favour of Malabika on 25/05/1981. Prativa Devi Pratima Devi, the mother of defendant/appellant Gorachand Mukherjee died on 9/09/1989 and after his death, plaintiff Malabika Dutta served a notice upon defendant/appellant, Gorachand Mukherjee to vacate the suit premises in view of revocation of licence. It was however specifically mentioned in the said deed of gift that Gorachand Mukherjee would be allowed to remain in this suit premises in case of death of Prativa Devi before attainment of majority by said Gorachand. Since Gorachand was major at the time of death of his mother Prativa, the plaintiff asked Gorachand to vacate the suit premises since Gorachand refused to vacate the suit premises, plaintiff instituted the suit against gorachand for his eviction therefrom.