Achutananda Baidya vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen And Ors on 8 April, 1997
When on appreciation of the evidence the findings had been recorded such findings cannot be said to be perverse findings. On the aspect of bona fide personal requirement the main ground of attack is that the accommodation of double storied is available had been lost sight of and yet another ground of attack is that yet another building available at Baghlingampally, though standing in mother's name also had been lost sight of. On a careful scrutiny of findings recorded by both the Courts, these aspects also had been taken into consideration and findings had been recorded. Hence, the same cannot be said to be perverse findings. Hence, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayer, . may not be applicable to the facts of the present case.