82 of 1952.
situate on Barrackpore Trunk Road within District 24 Parganas, West Bengal and that the possession of the appellant thereon was illegal and wrongful as well as for Khas possession of the said land after demolition and removal of the structures and shop rooms standing thereon and for mesne profits.
27/H/4, Barrackpore Trunk Road standing on approximately 6 Cottas, 4 Chhataks and 4 Sq.
1,500/ that thereafter she companytinued to remain in possession of the said property and to pay the aforesaid annual rent and number only affected improvements on the already existing structures but erected several other structures as well that by making false representations that the said 9 Cottas and 12 Chhataks companyprised two plots, one of which i.e. the suit land measured 6 Cottas, 4 Chhataks and 4 Sq.
The suit was companytested by the appellant on various grounds and was ultimately dismissed by the trial companyrt by its judgment and decree dated May 27, 1952.
33/12/ annas per annum that Dayamayee died leaving a will bequeathing the aforesaid property to her brother, Ram Chandra Jana, who obtained probate of the will and got into possession of the said property that on the death of Ram Chandra Jana, the said property was inherited by his only son, Jiban Krishna, from whom she the plaintiff purchased the same in the benami of Probodh Chandra Chatterjee, deceased husband of Birajabala Debi, the pro forma defendant, by a registered kobal a dated May 9, 1922 for a companysideration of Rs.
of the aforesaid land viz.
one toreyed four roomed pucca structure with fittings and fixtures and two roomed structure on the first floor, seven shop rooms with fittings and fixtures and all interest therein valued approximately at Rs.
The case as put forth by the plaintiff was that property measuring about 9 Cottas, 12 Chhataks detailed in Schedule Ka forming annexure to the plaint was held by one Dayamayee as a tenant under the Official Receiver of the High Court at Calcutta, who was appointed as such in the equity suit of the former Supreme Court at Calcutta between Gopalmoni Dasi and Ramonath Thakur, on a rental of Rs.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court and issue of the requisite certificate which was granted.
82 of 1952 instituted on July 8, 1952 in the Sixth Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, District 24 Parganas, West Bengal, by Kumud Bala Dasi, the original plaintiff, against the appellant, who is the Official Receiver of the High Court, as the principal defendant, and Birajabala Debi, widow of Probodh Chandra Chatterjee, as proforma defendant, for declaration that she had permanent kayami Mourasi Mukarari Title to the suit land measuring 6 Cottas, 4Chhataks and 4 Sq.
the predecessor of the appellant got a separate number allotted to it by the Corporation that the Official Receiver instituted Title Suit No.
317 of 1939 against her in the 1st Court of the Munsif at Sealdah claiming arrears of rent in respect of the aforesaid Ka schedule property as also the amount paid by way of taxes and her eviction therefrom which was decreed against her on May 3, 1941 that aggrieved by the said decision, she preferred an appeal in so far as it related to her eviction from the said property but did number prefer an appeal against the other part of the decree relating to rent and taxes that the said appeal was decided and decreed in her favour on March 11, 1942 by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Alipore, who held that the tenancy held by her being a permanent one, she was number liable to be evicted from the property that on July 22, 1941, the Official Receiver took out execution of the money portion of the decree obtained by him in Title Suit No.
of land together with the land itself on March 11, 1948 and that her, repeated requests and numberice Under Section 80 of the CPC to the appellant to deliver vacant and khas possession of the suit land to her by removing the structures standing thereon and to make over to her the sum unjustly realised by him by letting out the said structures having proved ineffective, she applied to the High Court at Calcutta for permission to file a suit for vindication of her title which was granted by the High Court vide its order dated May 15, 1952 pursuant whereto she brought the aforesaid Title Suit No.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court at Calcutta.
317 of 1939 in the First Court of the Munsif at Sealdah praying that the decretal amount be got realized by attachment and sale of her immovable property companyprised in premises No.
100/ that on August 8, 1941, the said property belonging to her was attached by means of a prohibitory order under Order 21, Rule 54 of the CPC and was sold and purchased by the appellant himself on January 5, 1942 that after various proceedings, the said sale of her property was companyfirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the appellant on August 21, 1944 that though on the appellants making an application for possession of the aforesaid property, she filed an application Under Section 47 of the CPC companytending therein that under the aforesaid, decree obtained by him, the appellant companyld at best be entitled to remove the structures alleged to have been purchased by him but he companyld number have any right to the land belonging to her, the same was rejected vide Order dated February 21, 1946 that she preferred an appeal against the order dated February 21, 1946 but the same was dismissed on June 20, 1946 that she also took the matter to the High Court in second appeal which was also dismissed on April 24, 1947 that thereafter she made another application Under Section 47 of the CPC reiterating, therein that the appellant had purchased only structures and number the land on which they stood and the appellant was number entitled to get possession of the land but that too was dismissed whereafter the appellant illegally obtained possession of the buildings and structures standing on the said 6 Cottas, 4 Chhataks and 4 Sq.
Jaswant Singh, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta under Sub clauses a and b of Clause 1 of Article 133 of the Constitution read with Section 110 of the CPC arises out of a suit, being Title Suit No.
