Raj Mal vs Prem Narain And Ors. on 19 March, 2004
In Subodh Gopal Bose's case (supra), the point was as to whether the tenant encroaching upon others land can claim title by adverse possession and the answer was in negative.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.67 seconds)Amal Chandra Mondal vs Anita Biswas And Anr. on 5 July, 2005
Unfortunately, the decision in Amritamay Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (supra) appears to be inconsistent with the Division Bench decisions in Subodh Gopal v. Nilabja Barani Debt (supra) and in Subodh Gopal Bose v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, I am bound to follow these Division Bench decisions regarding the legal effect of abatement of a suit under special laws. R. Bhattacharya, J. was inclined to hold that the effect of abatement under Section 57B and abatement under Order 22 of the Code are same. But, an order recording abatement of a suit by the death of the sole appellant or the sole respondent is not appealable either as an appeal from decree or as an appeal from an order. Order 43 Rule (1)(k) only makes an order refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit appealable.
Manmohan Service Station vs Mohd. Haroon Japanwala And Ors. on 17 May, 1994
'To .the same effect are .the observations as reported in Subodh Gopal Bose v. Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd., (AIR 1957 'Calcutta 67C2), Head Note B)....". When a tenant encroaches on land outside his tenancy but belonging to his landlord he cannot acquire absolute title thereto by the adverse possession but obtains -only the right of tenancy under his landlord..."
Smt. Krishna Kumari vs Sh. Rajinder Kumar on 15 January, 2013
17. Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that site plan of petitioner is
incorrect. He submitted that petitioner has included one Chabutara in the
tenanted shop. He informs that the said Chabutara belongs to MCD. Ld.
E.No. 42/11 Page 8 of 11
Counsel for petitioner replies the same by submitting that the said Chabutara
is in front of the tenanted shop and the respondents are paying Teh Bazari to
the MCD in respect of the said Chabutara. Ld. Counsel argued that the said
rights are attached with the tenanted shop and belonged to the petitioner. He
has relied upon AIR 1935 Calcutta 771 titled "Saroj Kumar Bose Vs.
Surjya Kanta Sarkar & Ors."; AIR 1957 Calcutta 67 titled "Subodh
Gopal Bose Vs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India
Ltd."; and RC Rev. No. 254/2012 titled "Babita Arora & Ors. Vs. Rajesh
Malhotra & Anr.".
Nag Vidarbh Chamber Of Commerce, Nagpur ... vs Madhya Pradesh Mechant Chamber Of ... on 4 July, 2018
On the contrary, the view
taken in the cases of Subodh Gopal Bose v. Gurmah Shell reported in
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 00:10:21 :::
3
AIR 1957 Calcutta 67 and Md. Ahmed Amolia v. Nirmal Chandra Roy
reported in AIR 1978 Calcutta 312 holding that additional portion
encroached upon by the tenant would also be a part of the tenanted
premises, would have application to the facts of the present case.
1