TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mt. Kamla Sundari Devi, wife of Duryodhan Khan was a benamidar of such property for her husband. On the other hand, the defendants had purchased the property from Hari Bala Dasi daughter of Kamla Sundari Devi some time in the year 1968. Admittedly, Kamla Sundari Dasi had only one daughter. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge, while disposing of the title suit as well as the Additional District Judge by his final judgment in appeal, held that the real owner of the property was the husband, namely, Duryodhan Khan and title of Kamla Sundari Dasi was ostensible. Accordingly, the defendants were directed to give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. 4. As would appear from the judgment under review, only substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants on 14-8-1968 by such unchaste lady was illegal and void. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance to the decisions in the case of Nogendra Nandini Dassi v. Venoy Krishna Deb, ILR (1903) 30 Cal 521, Bhaba Kanta Pachani v. Kerpai Chutia, AIR 1935 Cal 144; Ramaiya Konar v. Mottayya Mudaliar, AIR 1951 Mad 954 (FB) and Kanailal Mitra v. Pannasashi Mitra, AIR 1954 Cal 508. 6. The learned counsel contended that in spite of specific findings of the Courts below and settled norms by various decisions, as noticed above, this aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the learned Judge while disposing of the second appeal. 7. In my view, since no such question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, be held with respect, that the decision of this Court in Mithilesh Kumari case (AIR 1989 SC 1247) does not lay down Correct law so far as the applicability of Section 4(1) and Section 4(2) to the extent hereinabove indicated, to pending proceedings when these sections came into force, is concerned. ..... 9. There is no doubt that a bare reference to the judgment under review, it would appear that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below were set aside solitarily on the basis of ratio laid down in the case of Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare (AIR 1989 SC 1247) (supra). To my mind, these are not the matters to be considered and examined while hearing a petition for review. The petitioner, therefore, could have availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
