REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ASWINI KUMAR DEY Appellant

V/S

ANGUR BALA KUNDU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BABU RAM ROY V. MAHENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
IAJUDDIN SHEIKH V. UMEDALI MEAH [REFERRED TO]
UNITED PROVINCES V. ATIQUA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
KINURAM SADHUKHAN V. HAZI MD.YUSUF [REFERRED TO]
DAYAMOYI V. ANANDA MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
HAJI SK SUBHAN VS. MADHORAO [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQUENNESSA MOHAMMAD WAHEDULLA VS. LAL BAHADUR CHETRI SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS LEGAL REPRESEN TATIVES:MOHAMMAD ABDUL HANAID [REFERRED TO]
BANK LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION VS. SARKAR DUTT ROY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND BURMAN VS. MD LATIFF [REFERRED TO]
DEBENDRA NARAIN ROY VS. JOGENDRA NARAIN DEB [REFERRED TO]
BROJENDRA KUMAR DUTTA ROY VS. SUSHIL CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY [REFERRED TO]
JNANENDRANARAYAN BAGCHI VS. SARADASUNDARI DASI [REFERRED TO]
MANICKLALL DUTT VS. S. DABIRUDDIN AHMED [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the appellate judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing their suit for khas possession and injunction.

(2.) The material facts alleged by the plaintiffs are as follows:

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 who denied the material allegations in the plaint. She contended that Harimati was a non-ejectable tenant, that the lands of .06 decimals would be near about 2 cottahs in local measurement, and also that the record-of-right in respect of Khatian No. 1114 was correct. It was further contended that the plaintiffs' title had vested in the State under the Estates Acquisition Act. 1953, and the suit was not maintainable by the plaintiffs. More, tile defendant No. 2 has transferable interest which was duly acquired by the defendant No. 1 by a registered conveyance dated June 15, 1959 and she was not liable to eviction,

Click here to view full judgment.

ASWINI KUMAR DEY Vs. ANGUR BALA KUNDU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address