PROBODH CHANDRA GHOSH versus URMILA DASSI AND ANR.

PROBODH CHANDRA GHOSH versus URMILA DASSI AND ANR.

A claim made by the appellant under Section 144 CPC prior to the coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not barred by Section 4, and restoration of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 CPC is merely an act of the Court, not a fresh claim or action by the appellant after the Act's commencement.

Parties
Appellant: Probodh Chandra Ghosh; Respondent: Urmila Dassi; Other: Dasarathi (as referenced)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Revision Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Benami Transactions, Restitution of Possession, Execution Proceedings, Retrospectivity of Statutes
Civil Procedure Property Law Benami Transactions Restitution of Possession Execution Proceedings Retrospectivity of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Probodh Chandra Ghosh

Appellant

Urmila Dassi

Respondent

Dasarathi (as referenced)

Other

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Revision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 applies to an execution proceeding under Section 144 CPC for restitution initiated prior to the Act's commencement
  2. 2 Whether restoration of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 CPC after the Act is barred by Section 4

Ratio Decidendi

A claim made by the appellant under Section 144 CPC prior to the coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not barred by Section 4, and restoration of possession under Order 21, Rule 35 CPC is merely an act of the Court, not a fresh claim or action by the appellant after the Act's commencement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned revisional order dated 12th October, 1988 of the Calcutta High Court is set aside.
  • Costs on the parties.