Sg vs Md. Nazrul Islam
2023 Latest Caselaw 3610 Cal

SAT 331 of 2016 Item- CAN 1 of 2016 (old CAN 9568 of 2016) 19-05-2023

10.

Alibaddin Mondal & Ors.

          Ct. 8
 sg                                                Vs.
                                             Md. Nazrul Islam


                           Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                          ... For the Appellants

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants.

On consideration of the judgments of both the courts, we

admit this second appeal on the following questions of law:

I) Whether both the learned Counts below committed a

substantial error of law in overlooking the legal

effect of Exhibit 1, being the extracts of the R.S.

Records of Right and Exhibit 2, being the L.R.

Record of Right, which reflect the title as well as

possession of the Appellants, which stand unrebutted

by any documentary evidence?

II) Whether the learned Courts below substantially erred

in law in disbelieving the exchange by oral

settlement between late Rustom and late Khoda Box,

the original owners, which is amply reflected from

the documentary evidence, on the erroneous ground

that non-registration vitiates such transaction?

III) Whether, in view of the settled legal position that if a

previous oral arrangement is borne out by

documentary evidence and is acted upon by the

parties, the same is binding in law and is not vitiated

by absence of a registered document?

Call for records. Issue usual notices.

In Re: CAN 1 of 2016 (old CAN 9568 of 2016)

There shall be an order restraining the opposite parties from

transferring and/or alienating and/or encumbering the suit

property for a period of 12 weeks from date or until further orders

whichever is earlier.

The application may be listed before the appropriate Bench

after Summer Vacation.

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)