MONI MOHAN GHOSAL Vs. DULLI CHAND BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June, 7, 1965, Laik, J. issued a rule calling upon the sole opposite party, Dulli Chand Barman, to show cause why, pending the hearing of the connected appeal, admitted under order xli, rule 11, of the Code of Civil procedure on September 13, 1963, he should not be restrained from having his name mutated in the books of the khardah Municipality as respects the land in controversy here : the subject-matter of the aforesaid appeal.

(2.) ON August 9, 1966, I made the rule absolute. I was told that day on behalf of the sole opposite party that he had since transferred the land in controversy here to two other persons who, as it now appears upon affidavit-evidence, are Sudhir Kumar Ganguly and Mohit Lal Mitra, the purchasers from the sole opposite party Dulli chand, by a sale-deed dated April 19, 1961.

(3.) ON November 10, 1966, the municipality mutated the names of these two purchasers, Sudhir and mohit, in its books.