This delivery of possession was challenged by the respondent Urmila Dassi before the Calcutta High Court, This revision was allowed and the order for delivery of possession to the appellant was set aside on the ground that the same is violative of the provision of Section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance which is Section 4 of the Act, It is this order in revision, which is the subject matter of challenge before us.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated October 12, 1988 allowing the application under Section 115, CPC, through which the order dated 20th July 1988 was challenged, in case No.
On the 30th July, 1988 possession was delivered to the appellant.
This led to the filing of the suit by the respondent She prayed for a declaration of her title and also for declaration that the aforesaid sale deed dated 10th May, 1967 was number binding on her and for the recovery of possession of the same.
On the 20th July, 1988 a writ for restoration of possession to the appellant was issued under Order 21 Rule 35.
2000 Supp 1 SCR 672 The following Order of the Court was delivered Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Some time in 1952 in Re visional Settlement operation the property was recorded in the names of Anil Mani Dassi and Urmila Dassi.
At this point of time the cause of action of the present disputes arose as during this inter magnum on the 19th May, 1988, Benami Transaction Prohibition of right to recover property Ordinance of 1988 came into force.
13 of 1986, whereby a writ for delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 of the CPC was made.
Consequently on the 17th April 1986 the appellant filed an application under Section 144 CPC for restoration of possession.
However, three months time was granted to the respondent to restore back the possession.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent Urmila Dassi took possession of the suit property on 21st February, 1976 from the appellant by executing the decree through companyrt.
Anil Mani Dassi on 10th May, 1967 sold the entire suit property to Probodh Chandra Ghosh, the appellant before us after getting the said suit property in partition.
On the 4th March, 1988 the application for restoration was allowed.
Against this judgment, SLP was preferred by the respondent which was also dismissed on 7th August, 1987.
Her case was that the suit property was purchased by her mother from her stridhan.
Dasarathi was amongst the other companysharer and this property of Jadavpur was allotted to Urmila Bala exclusively.
Finally the appeal was disposed of and the decree of the trial companyrt was reversed.
It is only thereafter on the 19th May, 1988, the aforesaid Ordinance came into force.
On the 4th March, 1988, the said application was allowed.
Immediately after the aforesaid purchase by the said Probodh Chandra Ghosh, he took possession of the suit property.
Thereafter, the respondent Urmila Dassi preferred a second appeal which was disposed of by companyfirming the appellate companyrt judgment and decree.
The suit was decreed.
The case is that in these proceedings the respondent did appear but did number companytest the same.
Though the respondent appeared in the proceedings but did number companytest the same.
