Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-13-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2209; 2005(4)ALD98(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)458; 2005(2)AWC1348(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1273; 2005(5)BomCR690; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN83; 2005(4)CTC47; JT2005(5)SC20; 2005(2)KLT80; (2005)11SCC403
ar. lakshmanan, j. 1. leave granted.2. these two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the high court at calcutta in c.a.n. no. 2642 of 2004 in s.a.no. 631 of 1993 and in c.a.n. no. 2643 of 2004 in s.a.no. 632 of 1993 whereby the high court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, amit kumar shaw and anand kumar shaw as contesting respondents in place and stead of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place. according to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.3. the service of notice is complete in both the matters but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. the short facts are as follows:the property in question originally belonged to khetra mohan das and subsequently by way of lease and transfer; the said property ultimately came in the hands of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey. there were troubles in between the original owner and the said birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey and as a result of that, the suit was filed. one fakir mohammad claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by way of adverse possession. ultimately, both the appeals being title appeal no. 400 of 1989 and title appeal no. 7 of 1990 were allowed by a common judgment and .....Tag this Judgment!