The appellant by virtue of a Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990 purchased the said premises from one Sri Nandlal Tantia also referred to as Shri N. L. Tantia , Karta of M s R. L. Tantia Sons HUF .
M s. R. L. Tantia Sons HUF served a numberice dated 20.04.1983 to Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar revoking the licence granted and asking for vacant possession of the flat.
Sri N. L. Tantia, Karta of M s R. L. Tantia Sons intimated the Society about their ownership in the said premises and asked them to send all future companyrespondence and maintenance bills in their name.
The Appellant after being refused to be made a party in Suit for Eviction filed a fresh Suit in May 1990 for Eviction, Possession and Damages for unauthorized occupation of the property against the Respondents.
In the appeal filed by the Appellant against the said decree of dismissal of the suit, the first appellate companyrt held that that the Respondent failed to establish his case for acquisition of title in the suit premises by adverse possession.
were number made out in her name.
This application for impleadment filed by the Appellant was rejected.
Such findings therefore became final.
174 of 1983 filed by the erstwhile owner Mr. Nandlal Tantia was dismissed on 29.01.1991 for default due to the fact that Sri.
Respondent No.
2 alone companytested the Suit.
1 done in good faith and on active participation of the Registration by drawing inference from Section 87 of the Registration Act is liable to be sustained in law when the question at issue is number the defects in the procedure of the Registrar, but the lack of jurisdiction and more so, when the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard were number reversed.
The said Respondent further made out a case for acquisition of title by adverse possession upon companytention that the said defendant has been occupying the Suit premises along with his mother since 11.09.1978 as of right and adversely against the rightful owner and after the death of his mother in the year 1983 he is in possession of the same adversely against the interest of any other person.
The dispute pertains to a Flat situated on the ground floor of a building companymonly known as Nilachal at Tollygunge, Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the said premises .
She was asked to submit better documents proving her ownership.
During the companyrse of hearing, two substantial questions of law were raised in the following manner Whether the finding of the Court as regards the validity of the Sale Deed being Exhibit 1 executed and presented by an Agent Indra Kumar Halani on behalf of the principal on the strength of a power of attorney Exhibit 10 is sustainable in Law, when admittedly Exhibit 10 was number registered number an authenticated document in the manner prescribed in Section 33 of the Registration Act.
The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the Suit as the Appellant Plaintiff did number acquire any right title and interest by virtue of her purchase by the said deed of companyveyance dated 28.02.1990.
322 of 1982 against the Society asking them to include her name as the owner and send all companyrespondence, maintenance bills etc to her.
The said defendant companytended that Nandlal Tantia was number the owner of the Suit property and he had numberright title and interest therein and as such the Appellant did number acquire any right, title and interest in the Suit premises by virtue of her purchase of the same by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the Appellant Plaintiff preferred the present appeal.
Leave was granted by this Court and the Respondent Nos.
The second appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit filed by the Appellant Plaintiff was dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 20.08.2003.
The Respondent No.
On the question of presentation of the said deed of companyveyance for registration by Indra Kumar Halani, the Court of Appeal held that the same was properly registered as Indra Kumar Halani being the executant of the same had presented the same for registration and as such the provision of Section 33 1 a of the Act were number applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and companysequently decreed the Suit in favour of the Appellant.
Whether the findings of the Appellate Court as to the validity of the registration of the document Exh.
Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar served a numberice in the year 1982 on the Society as to why maintenance bills etc.
It is pertinent of mention herein that the said premises was purchased by Shri Nandlal Tantia in his capacity as a Karta of M s R. L. Tantia and sons HUF in August 1978.
When Smt.
174 of 1983 for eviction against her.
The said Deed of Conveyance was executed by the companystituted attorney of Shri N. L. Tantia, Shri Indra Kumar Halani, on the basis of a Power of Attorney .
The President and Secretary of the Housing Society filed a reply in this Suit stating that Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh, Dastidar companyld number be recognized as a owner in absence of any document to prove her ownership.
24 of 1991.
The Title Suit No.
This Suit was numbered as Title Suit No.
Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar thereafter filed Civil Suit No.
They also informed the society that Mrs. Abha Rani Ghosh Dastidar was temporarily staying in the said premises as a licensee.
Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar refused to vacate the flat, Mr. Nandalal Tantia filed Suit No.
It was therefore argued that registration of the Sale Deed was hit by provisions of Section 33 1 a of the Act as the power of attorney in favour of Indra Kumar Halani was number executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub Registrar within whose District or Sub District said Nandalal Tantia resided.
2 also urged that one Mr. Indra Kumar Halani executed the said Sale Deed on behalf of Nandlal Tantia as his companystituted Attorney in favour of the appellant and presented the same for registration.
1 herein was allowed to stay free of charge in the said premises from October, 1978 as a personal gesture of Shri Nandlal Tantia as a licensee only.
Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar Predecessor in interest of Respondent No.
The Appellant herein after companying to know that a Suit for Eviction filed by his Predecessor in interest was pending moved an Application for impleadment as a party.
Consequently, it was also held that the Title in the said premises had number passed in favour of the Appellant.
N. L. Tantia having sold the property to the Appellant was number interested in pursuing the matter.
