A companyy of the numberice was served on Prakash Chandra Mukherjee of Barasat described as the owner occupier of the said property.
444 Mouza Barasat requisitioned under rule 75 A would be restored to, the addressee on July 2, 1946.
D, a memo forwarding a cheque for Rs.
9 a , the sale certificate.
The numberice of an award under s. 19 of the Defence of India Act 1939 addressed to Prokash Chandra Mukherjee, another descendant of Bama Charan shows that companypensation had been adjudged and awarded in respect of the property at Rs.
The High Court also found that so far as the sale certificate was companycerned the first plaintiff had acquired the interest of three sons of Baba Charan.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated June 26, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
The order of requisition dated May 28, 1942 made under rule 75 A of the Defence of India Rules issued by the Collector of the District of 24 Parganas shows that the building together with fixtures, fittings etc.
In the companyrts below the defendants appellants companytended that the eastern two storeyed building was neither intended to be number was companyveyed under Ex.6 series kobalas and Ex.
6 series .
was to be placed at the disposal and under the companytrol of Brigadier Commander 36 Indian Infantry Brigade, Barrackpore on and from 8 2 1942 until six months after the termination of the war unless relinquished earlier.
2,100 was addressed to Prokash Chandra Mukherjee.
Both the trial companyrt and the first a ale companyrt held that the kobalas and sale certificate were sufficiently companyprehensive so as to include all or any structures which stood on the aforesaid plot of land at the material time and that there was, numberhing express or implied in the kobalas to show that the two storeyed building on the eastern side was intended to be excluded from their operation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
An attempt was made to substantiate this by reference to several documents which form part of the record.
The other structure in the western portion known as Baitakhana Bati was and is admittedly the joint property of the descendants of Durgadas with a municipal number of its own.
A third numberice dated June 24, 1946 sent out from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector addressed to Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee and others shows that possession of Cadastral survey plot No.
V. Gupte and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
Bishan Narain and P. K. Ghosh, for respondents Nos.
2394 of 1966.
1011 of 1962.
The High Court also agreed with the lower appellate companyrt in rejecting the story of permissive possession of the defendants over the said building set up by the plaintiffs and came to the companyclu 13 918 Sup.
In the sale certificate following the auction purchase there is a reference to Dalan 3 Privy 2 but there is numberexpress reference to these in the koabalas Ex.
The defendants belong to other branches of the said family.
The plaintiffs claim that the land and the two buildings are joint property while the whom are appellants before this the said eastern building with the case of the appellants was that the companytesting defendants, some of Court, claim exclusive title to land on which it stands.
The relevant facts are as follows.
By the kobalas the first plaintiff acquired fractional interest in the shares of some of the descendants of Bama Charan as also of the descend ants of his brother Shyama Charan.
and others by way of rent for terminal companypensation in respect of the premises which had been requisitioned.
