SUMERMAL SURANA & ANR Vs. BHAWAR LAL BHANDARI & ORS
LAWS(CAL)-2017-9-37
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 11,2017

Sumermal Surana And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Bhawar Lal Bhandari And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) The Receiver has filed a report wherefrom it appears that the Receiver has implemented the order. However, an application has been filed by one Rajul Mukim claiming to be a lessee in respect of the property in question. Rajul admits that under the registered lease no specific portion of the premises in question has been allotted to him. The Receiver during his visit did not find Rajul to be in possession of any portion of the property in question. Rajul is the daughter of the first defendant. Rajul claims to have entered into a lease agreement with the defendant no.3. The registered deed of lease does not specify the areas and/or floors on which the lease hold interest is alleged to have been created in favour of Rajul. A final decree has already been passed. Under the final decree the defendant no.1 who happens to be the father of the applicant was allotted first floor rear portion 2527 sq. ft. along with the constructed area at the 4th floor measuring about 2527 sq. ft. as indicated in the plan in yellow colour and the defendant no.3 was allotted the 3rd Floor having 5047 sq. ft. shown as brown colour. Under the final decree ground floor was allotted to the plaintiff no.2 and the 2nd floor was allotted to plaintiff no.1. The lease hold interest of the applicant, if any, is only restricted to the 3rd Floor. Now by reason of the final decree she cannot claim any independent right over rest of the properties. In fact, the report of the Receiver clearly shows that the applicant was not found to be in possession of the portions allotted to the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2.
(2.) The receiver shall hand over possession of the respective allotted areas to the parties to the suit in accordance with the sketch plan annexed to the final decree and shall stand discharged. The Receiver's report is taken on record. It appears that the plaintiff no.1 is required to pay a sum of Rs.12.65 to the defendant no.2 and an owelty money of Rs,.23.45 lakhs to the plaintiff no.2. The receiver upon intimation being received that the owelty monies have been paid as indicated above shall hand over possession of the respective lots to the parties. In the event any party refuse to accept possession from the receiver the receiver shall deposit the keys of the rooms allotted to such parties with the Registrar Original Side along with the report to that effect. After delivery of possession as indicated above the receiver shall stand discharged.
(3.) The receiver shall be entitled to a final remuneration of 2000 GMs. to be paid by the plaintiffs.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.