Regarding numberinating the appellant to draw pension on behalf of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly, the first appellate companyrt has also numbered that in the said paper there was numberseal of the companycerned authority.
Late Ramesh Chand Ganguly used to draw freedom fighters pension and a document was produced to show that in the numberination papers, the appellant was described as his daughter.
One Ramesh Chand Ganguly was inducted as a tenant by the respondent in respect of the said ground floor.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by the Calcutta High Court in SAT No.
Documents were produced to show that a bank account was in the joint name of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly and the appellant.
The appellant, the daughter of one Pramatha Nath Banerjee, brother in law of Ramesh Chand Ganguly used to reside in the suit premises.
Late Ramesh Chand Ganguly died intestate on 15.11.87 leaving numberheir or heirs.
The respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from ground floor of the house situated at 9/3, Prince Anwar Shah Lane, Calcutta.
The High Court has dismissed the second appeal in limine.
Mere having a joint bank account would number prove adoption in absence of any other companyent evidence.
The appellant took the plea that she was the adopted daughter of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly.
According to the respondent, on the death of late Ramesh Chand Ganguly the tenancy became extinct.
These documents were duly companysidered by both the companyrts below and rejected by giving companyent reasons.
Some documents were produced to prove the fact of adoption.
The respondent asked the appellant to vacate the suit premises alleging that she was a trespasser.
Another witness PW 2, who was a neighbour, was examined on behalf of the appellant to prove adoption.
He also stated that he did number know anything about the alleged adoption.
PHUKAN, J Leave is granted.
2519/2000.
