9202 the High Court agreed with the Land Acquisition Court and held that in the companyrt sale, Kashi Nath Dawn had number purchased any property in Mouza Asansol Municipality and therefore he had number title thereto.
There was a partition between the two sisters of Monza Asansol property and in companysequence plot No.
936 of Monza Asansol measuring about 31 acres, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total companypensation of Rs.
13/ 1/6 on account of the landlords interest.
Regarding plot No.
Kashi Nath Dawn filed two appeals before the Calcutta High ,Court, being First Appeals Nos.
In companysequence First Appeal No.
311 and 312 of 1956 respectively.
936 was number recognised by the High Court, Civil Appeal 436 of 1967 has been filed.
The sale was companyfirmed on November 27, 1930 and delivery of possession was also taken on December 10, 1930.
It was on this basis that Bhaktabala Dasi claimed exclusive title to plot No.
The sale certificate Ex.
7 dated March 3, 1939 and the result of the decision was that the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn was upheld and that of Subasini Dasi and her sons was rejected, though on default.
Panchanan Roy during the life time of his mother in law Manmohini was allowed to manage the properties.
Manmohini and three daughters, Santabala, Subasini and Bhaktabala.
311 of 1956 related to plot No.
Two plots of land bearing No.
In this view the learned Additional District Judge held that Kashi Nath Dawn did number purchase in the companyrt sale any plot of land within Monza Asansol Municipality and as such he had numbertitle to plot No.
On the death of Ramanugrah a Roy, his widow Manmohini succeeded to the property as life estate holder.
The High Court further held that in the companyrt sale, Kashi Nath Dawn had purchased the half share owned by Panchanan Roy in Monza Asansol and as such he had title to half share in plot No.
936 of Monza Asansol, the learned Additional District Judge held that Panchanan Roy had wrongfully and fraudulently got recorded his name as owner of the half share when he was managing the property on behalf of his mother in law Manmohini widow of Ramanugraha Roy.
936 and First Appeal No.
Appeals from the judgment and decrees dated March 27, 1962 ,of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeals Nos.
In execution of the money decree Execution Case No.
936 and the right to receive the entire companypensation amount for that land.
Panchanan Roy was never in possession and enjoyment of the properties whereas Manmohini Dasi during her life time and on her death her daughter Subasini and Bhaktabala were in possession and enjoyment.
At this stage it may be mentioned that Civil Appeals No.
312 of 1956 related to plot No.
936 of Monza Asansol was obtained as her share by Bhaktabala Dasi.
The case of Bhaktabala Dasi, who alone companytested the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn was briefly as follows Panchanan Roy had numbertitle to the properties and that on the other hand they belonged to Ramanugraha Roy, who died leaving his widow.
311 and 312 of 1956.
936 of Mouza Asansol and plot No.
436 and 437 of 1967 against the decision of the High Court in First Appeals Nos.
The Court did number also I accept the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn that for the purpose of C. S. operation only the lands within Mouza Asansol Municipality were separately recorded and that they were also included within Monza Asansol.
120 of 1929, Subordinate Judges Court, Asansol , the decree holder brought these two items and certain other properties to sale.
A plea of res judicata raised by Kashi Nath Dawn based upon Ex.
She claimed that in respect of plot No.
As Santabala died shortly after her fathers death, the properties devolved on the other two sisters namely, Subasini and Bhaktabala, on the death of Marnmohini Panchanan Roy had married Santabala and on her death he married her sister Subasini.
436 of 1967.
311 and 312 of 1956.
This finding was number accepted by the High Court.
Plot No.
Before the Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of both these plots, one Kashi Nath Dawn claimed title to the land and as such to the entire companypensation amount.
As the full right of Kashi Nath Dawn in plot No.
It was on the strength of this purchase in Court auction that Kashi Nath Dawn claimed title to the two plots.
In view of the dispute regarding right to receive the companypensation amount, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Additional District Judge, Burdwan for determination of the said dispute.
In this view the High Court modified the decree of the learned Additional District Judge and held that in respect of plot No.
A the holders are divided into 17 groups but the holders of ka group were described as Manmohini wife of Ramanugraha Roy and Panchanan Roy s o Umesh Chandra Roy.
312 of 1956 was dismissed against which Civil Appeal No.
437 of 1967 has been filed.
Regarding plot No 9202 of Monza Asansol Municipality, it was held that long before the sale in Execution Case No.
The declaration under s. 6 dated December 30, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 8th January, 1948.
9202 of Monza Asansol Municipality were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
reference to plot No.
7 the decree of the Land Acquisition Case No.
242 of 1938, with reference to plot No.
9202, was also rejected by the High Court.
Finally the Additional District Judge held that Kashi Nath Dawn was number entitled to claim any portion of the companypensation amount in respect of the two plots.
The Court further held that Panchanan Roy was never in possession and enjoyment of both the plots in question.
311 and 312 of 1956.
2 under which Kasbi Nath Dawn claimed title was scrutinized by the Court which held that the description of the various items clearly showed that numberland of Monza Asansol Municipality was included therein.
The claim that Panchanan Roy was in possession of this plot was also rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
These two persons were also described as being entitled to 8 g. 1 k. 5 tils each.
9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded as companypensation a sum of Rs.
9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, she and her sister Subasini Dasi, had a title to half share each and asserted the right to receive company pensation on that basis.
936 has been found to be one of the plots recorded as in khas possession of ka group in Ex.
The First Appeal No.
Kashi Nath Dawn claimed to have purchased these items in the Court sale and obtained the sale certificate Ex.
The High Court did number agree with the learned Additional District Judge that Panchanan Roy had fraudulently got his name entered in the settlement register as owner of half share in plot No.
436 and 437 of 1967.
120 of 1929, the Katiyans and the maps had been published and they companyclusively show that Monza Asansol Municipality was a Monza different from Monza Asansol with different J.L. number.
The case of Kashi Nath Dawn was that both the plots of land belonged to Panchanan Roy, husband of Subasini Dasi, against whom a money decree had been obtained by one Jatin Kumar Roy.
The entire companypensation in respect of this plot was directed to be paid to Bhaktabala, Dasi, the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The request for adducing additional evidence made on behalf of Kashi Nath Dawn was also rejected by the High Court.
In the settlement proceedings of 1918 21 he surreptitiously got his name recorded as owner of one half share in the ,estate of his father in law in Monza Asansol and of the entire interest in Monza Asansol Municipality.
In respect of plot No.
936 both Kasbi Nath Dawn and Bhaktabala Dasi were entitled to half share each and in that proportion were also entitled to the companypensation amount.
The numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated December 13, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette of 25th December, 1947.
936 numberwithstanding the fact that Kashi Nath Dawn was number able to establish that Pancbanan Roy was in possession and actual enjoyment of his half share.
The appellants in these two appeals are the legal representatives of Kashi Nath Dawn.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. These two appeals on certificate are directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 27, 1962 in First Appeals from the Original Decree Nos.
The stand taken before the Land Acquisition Collector was reiterated before the learned Additional District Judge.
The respondent did number appear.
N. Mukherjee, for the appellants in all the appeals .
The companyrt accepted the plea of Bhaktabala Dasi that she and her sister Subasini Dasi were entitled to the companypensation amount in equal shares.
For plot No.
As the Land Acquisition Collector had made separate references in respect of each of the plots and as the two references were disposed of separately, though by a companymon judgment, two appeals were filed in the High Court.
1707/ including Rs.
