Amal in his written statement filed in the suit inter alia companytended that Suprovabala was benamdar of Dr. Ghosh.
Although initially all the sisters and the brother were living together in the said house, inter alia, after their marriage the daughters of Suprovabala started living at their respective husbands places.
However, three sisters allegedly companytinued to live in the said house till May, 1958 but they had to leave it because of ill treatment of Amal and his wife.
Before the learned Trial Judge, plaintiff Binapani examined herself as PW 3.
Marriage of four sisters of Amal took place in the suit premises during the period 1944 to 1970.
Amal died during pendency of the suit whereupon Respondent Nos.
The said power of attorney was executed before a Magistrate at Rangoon.
1 and 2 were substituted in his place.
Amal objected thereto, but his objection was rejected.
Amal was married to Respondent No.
In the year 1958, the daughters of Suprovabala got their names mutated in place of their mother.
A first appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court by Respondent Nos.
1 herein in 1946.
A Division Bench of the High Court although companypleted hearing of the appeal on 25.01.2002, delivered judgment after 19 months, i.e., on 29.07.2003.
1 and 2.
Suprovabala, therefore, had only a limited interest under the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 and on her death Amal became the absolute owner.
