TUSHAR KANTI BOSE AND ORS. versus SA VITRI DEVI AND ORS.

TUSHAR KANTI BOSE AND ORS. versus SA VITRI DEVI AND ORS.

The Division Bench order is unsustainable due to non-consideration of the report of the Special Officer and the survey, both of which constitute important evidence. Setting aside the Division Bench judgment and remitting the matter for reconsideration is warranted.

Parties
Appellant: Tushar Kanti Bose and Ors.; Respondent: Savitri Devi and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Division Bench Order of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for disposal after considering relevant reports.
Legal Topics
Liquidation Proceedings, Court Sale, Demarcation of Property, Mandatory Injunction, High Court Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tushar Kanti Bose and Ors.

Appellant

Savitri Devi and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Division Bench Order of Calcutta High Court

  1. 1 Whether the Division Bench erred in not considering the report of the Special Officer appointed by it and the survey conducted regarding demarcation of property.
  2. 2 Whether possession and restoration orders were appropriate given the facts and rival claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The Division Bench order is unsustainable due to non-consideration of the report of the Special Officer and the survey, both of which constitute important evidence. Setting aside the Division Bench judgment and remitting the matter for reconsideration is warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for disposal after considering relevant reports.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Division Bench order dated 25th September 1995 passed in Appeal No. 340 of 1988 is set aside.