{"id":214350,"date":"1990-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990"},"modified":"2017-11-12T07:14:34","modified_gmt":"2017-11-12T01:44:34","slug":"paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990","title":{"rendered":"Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 796, \t\t 1990 SCR (2) 283<\/div>\n
Author: S Rangnathan<\/div>\n
Bench: Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPAUL BROTHERS (TAILORING DIVISION)AND ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASHIM KUMAR MANDAL AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/04\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR  796\t\t  1990 SCR  (2) 283\n 1990 SCC  (3) 726\t  JT 1990 (3)\t 81\n 1990 SCALE  (1)768\n\n\nACT:\n    Practice  and Procedure.' Sanchaita case--Directions  of\nSupreme Court explained.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    These appeals arose as a sequel to certain directions of\nthis Court in the famous Sanchaita Investment Company  case,\nwhich by dint of tremendous advertisement campaign collected\ndeposits  amounting to several crores of rupees\t from  thou-\nsands  of depositors spread all over India. The\t firm  pros-\npered  and thereafter tied up and siphoned away\t a  sizeable\nportion of its funds from its coffers for the benefit of the\nmanagement  personnel  by acquiring  movable  and  immovable\nproperties  in the names of the firm, relatives and  benami-\ndars.  Then they started making defaults in its\t obligations\nto the depositors.\n    The depositors approached the High Court and  eventually\nthe  matter  came up to this Court in 1983. With a  view  to\nsafeguard  the interests of the depositors and\tensure\tthat\nthe  properties of the firm be duly identified and full\t and\ndue  benefit of the funds be diverted to its  coffers,\tthis\nCourt  by its order appointed a Commissioner to take  charge\nof  all the assets, documents, papers of the  firm,  agents,\nsub-agents,  transferees and benamidars.  Further to  enable\nthe  Commissioner to gather all the assets of the  firm,  he\nwas  given powers to attach all assets and properties  which\nin his prima facie opinion are of the ownership of the\tfirm\nor  any of its partners. Such assets were to be put to\tsale\nif no objections are received there to within one month from\nthe  date  of attachment. All objections  thus\treceived  in\nrespect\t of  such  properties were to be  forwarded  to\t the\nProthonotary of Calcutta High Court, and a Division Bench of\nthe  High Court was to dispose of the objections on  merits.\nBy  a  further order dated 23rd September, 1985\t this  Court\nempowered the Commissioner to remove all unauthorised\n283\npersons\t or  trespassers  from possession  of  the  property\nproposed  to  be  sold, and the Commissioner  to  hand\tover\nvacant possession to the rightful purchasers.\n    One of the properties thus attached by the\tCommissioner\nby a public notice was house N. 52\/1\/1B Surendra Nath Baner-\njee  Road, Calcutta. It was subsequently brought to sale  on\n\"as is and where is basis\". Asit Kumar Mandal and two others\npurchased  this property and requested the  Commissioner  to\ngive  them vacant possession. Since the sale was on  \"as  is\nand where is basis\", the Mandais moved an application before\nthe High Court Division Bench praying for the vacant posses-\nsion of the said property and the same was granted.\n    Hence  the appellants i.e. Paul Bros and  Others,  moved\ntwo  Special Leave Petitions in this Court and claimed\tthat\nthey  were bona fide tenants in the property even under\t the\npredecessors-in-interest of Mahamaya Devi in whose name\t the\nproperty was purchased by Sanchaita firm and therefore could\nbe evicted only in accordance with due process of law  after\nfull  contest, and could not be thrown out in  summary\tpro-\nceedings  just as if they were persons in unauthorised\tpos-\nsession\t of the property, or as if they were mere  trespass-\ners.  On the other hand the Mandais contended that in  terms\nof  the orders of this Court, and of the  Calcutta  Division\nBench  they  purchased the property only on the\t basis\tthat\nthey would get a perfect title and speedy possession.\nAllowing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court,\n    HELl):  That the contention of the Mandais is not  main-\ntainable  either in principle or on the terms of the  direc-\ntions of this Court. The attachment and sale in pursuance of\nthis  Court's order of the present property in question\t did\nnot  have  the legal effect of\tinvalidating  any  interests\ncreated\t or  subsisting in the property\t by  sale,  transfer\nencumbrance or alienation prior to the attachment. Even\t the\nsale was on \"as is and where is basis\". The Courts order  of\n27th  September,  1983 only empowered  the  Commissioner  to\nremove all unauthorised persons and trespassers but  persons\nwho are in lawful possession of the\n284\nproperty  could\t not be evicted forcibly or  summarily.\t The\nsaid  order could not be interpreted to mean that  the\tpur-\nchasers\t would be entitled to vacant possession through\t the\ncommissioner  even  by evicting bona fide tenants  or  other\nencumbrancer  or  independent out-siders  who  had  acquired\ninterest  for consideration in the property. The  object  of\nthe directions was to cut short the proliferation of litiga-\ntion and to gather in expeditiously the assets of Sanchaita.\n[292D--E; 295H; 296B]\n    Having  regard to the large scale dealings, the  special\ncircumstances and the desperate situation, the Court made an\nexception  and made it possible for the Commissioner to\t get\nfalse  and  frivolous claimants out of the way\tby  a  quick\nprocedure because even normally the trespassers and unautho-\nrised  persons\tcannot be thrown out except by\trecourse  to\nlegal proceedings. So this order could not be availed of  to\nride  rough-shod over the rights and interests of others  in\nthe properties which had been created bona fide. Even  third\nparties\t who  have acquired real interests in  the  property\neither\tindependent of, or even through Sanchaita could\t not\nbe  called upon to give up their rights which would mean  to\ndo  more  than\tmerely realise what  rightfully\t belongs  to\nSanchaita  that is by conferring a better title than it\t had\nin  fact acquired while purchasing those properties,  [297B,\nG]\n    So\tin the instant case, considering the  materials\t and\nevidence  and  the records placed before the  Court  by\t the\nclaimants\/objectors,  to prove that they are not stooges  or\nfalse  claimants but have bona fide right to possession,  it\nwas  held  that the auction purchaser could not\t evict\tPaul\nBrothers and Phani Bhushan Ghose except eviction proceedings\nin  the normal course and in accordance with law as  may  be\navailable  to  them  against  the  claimants\/objectors.\t The\nclaim's of the other appellant was rejected. [297C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1755-56
\nof 1990.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1989 of the\tCal-
\ncutta High Court in Matter No. 3737 of 1987.
\nDr. Shankar Ghosh, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R. Setia, K.V. Vis-\n<\/p>\n
285<\/span><\/p>\n
wanathan and A.K. Sil for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    S.K.  Kapoor, P.K. Pillai D.K. Sinha, Mrs. R.  Paul\t and
\nH.K. Puri for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRANGANATHAN, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    These appeals arise as a sequel to certain directions of
\nthis  Court  in\t the famous Sanchaita  case.  The  Sanchaita
\nInvestment Company was a firm which was controlled and\trun,
\nprimarily, by three persons Samonu Prasad Mukherjee, Bihari-
\nal Murarka, and Swapan Kumar Guha. It had been able, by dint
\nof a tremendous advertisement campaign, to collect  deposits
\namounting  to  several crores of rupees\t from  thousands  of
\ndepositors  spread all over India by holding out  attractive
\nterms  of  interest. The firm initially\t prospered  and\t its
\ndeposits steeply mounted to astronomical figures. The  firm,
\nhowever, began to acquire, or deal in, movable and immovable
\nproperties in various cities of India in the names, not only
\nof  the\t firm, but of relatives and  benamidars\t of  various
\npersons\t who  were  in management its  affairs.\t A  sizeable
\nportion\t of the firm’s funds being thus tied up or  siphoned
\naway  from its coffers for the private benefit of the  indi-
\nviduals\t running  it, the firm eventually began\t making\t de-
\nfaults in its obligations to the depositors. The depositors,
\nthereupon,  approached\tthe High Court\tand  eventually\t the
\nmatters\t came up to this Court in W.P. Nos. 638 and  755-800
\nof  1983.  With\t a view to safeguard the  interests  of\t the
\ndepositors, arrange for a return to them of as much of their
\ndeposits  as possible and ensure that the properties of\t the
\nfirm  were duly identified and the full and due\t benefit  of
\nthe  funds  diverted from its coffers was  restored  to\t the
\nfirm,  this  Court, by its order dated 4.5.83,\tappointed  a
\nretired\t District Judge as a Commissioner to take charge  of
\nall the assets, documents and papers of the firm and of\t its
\nagents,\t sub-agents, transferees and benamidars.  Directions
\nwere  given to the Commissioner to look into the  claims  of
\ndepositers  and to devise a scheme whereby persons  who\t had
\ndeposited  sums\t not  exceeding Rs.25,000  could  be  repaid
\nexpeditiously. By a subsequent order dated 27.9.83,  certain
\ndirections were given to enable the Commissioner to
\n286<\/span>
\ngather\tin  all the assets of the firm. It is  necessary  to
\nquote a portion of this order. It read:\n<\/p>\n
“The  Commissioner  may attach such  assets  and  properties
\nwhich,\tin his prima facie opinion, are of the ownership  of
\nthe  firm Sanchaita Investments, or of the ownership of\t any
\nof  its partners. Such assets and properties may be  put  to
\nsale by the Commissioner if no objection is received to\t the
\nattachment  thereof within one month of the date of  attach-
\nment.  All  objections received to the\tattachment  of\tsuch
\nassets\tor properties will be forwarded by the\tCommissioner
\nto  the Prothonotary of the High Court of Calcutta.  We\t re-
\nquest  the learned Chief Justice of the Calcutta High  Court
\nto  nominate  a\t Division Bench of the High  Court  for\t the
\npurpose\t of jurisdiction upon such objections. The  Division
\nBench will dispose of the objections on merits after hearing
\nall interested parties.”\n<\/p>\n
    Reference  must  also be made to another order  of\tthis
\nCourt  dated 23.9.85 in C.M.P. No. 38589\/85. By this  order,
\nthis Court directed:\n<\/p>\n
“After heating counsel for the parties we consider it neces-
\nsary  to empower the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investment,  to
\nremove all unauthorised persons and trespassers from posses-
\nsion of the property proposed to be sold by the Commissioner
\nunder  the  orders  of this Court and to  hand\tover  vacant
\npossession  to the rightful purchasers. The Commissioner  is
\nauthorised  to\ttake the assistance of the  police  for\t the
\npurpose\t of obtaining possession and handing it over to\t the
\nrightful purchasers.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tpursuance  of  these  directions,  the\tCommissioner
\nattached  a large number of properties situate all over\t the
\ncountry\t which,\t he had reason to believe,  were  properties
\nwhich  belonged to the firm though acquired in the names  of
\nothers.\t When the properties were so attached and sought  to
\nbe sold, objections were lodged by persons claiming title or
\npossession  of\tthe property in their own  right  and  these
\nobjections were adjudicated upon by the designated  Division
\nBench of the Calcutta High Court.\n<\/p>\n
287<\/span><\/p>\n
    One\t of  the properties that were thus attached  by\t the
\nCommissioner  was house No. 52\/1\/1B, Surendra Nath  Banerjee
\nRoad,  Calcutta- 14. (There is a slight discrepancy  in\t the
\ndoor  number of this property as appearing in various  docu-
\nments  but  that  is not material for  our  purposes).\tThis
\nproperty stood on land of the small extent of about 800\t sq.
\nft.  and comprised of five rooms in the ground floor  (three
\nin  front and two at the back), a first floor and  a  second
\nfloor  but,  being business premises in\t a  busy  commercial
\nlocality,  is of considerable value today. The\tCommissioner
\nfound  that this property had been acquired in the  name  of
\nMahamaya  Devi,\t an  aunt of Sambhu  Prasad  Mukherjee,\t for
\nRs.85,000  on 4.10.1977. Apparently the Commissioner was  of
\nthe  opinion that the property was really that of  the\tfirm
\nacquired  in the name of Mahamaya Devi. He,  therefore,\t at-
\ntached\tthis  property by a public notice taken\t out,  inter
\nalia,  in  “The Statesman” dated 27.5.84  to  the  following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
“The  Public  are hereby informed that in  exercise  of\t the
\nauthority  and\tpower vested in me under the  order  of\t the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court of India passed and made on 4.5.83 and
\n27.9.83\t  …..\t , I had attached or I had taken  possession
\nof or I am hereby taking possession of (as the case may\t be)
\nthe  following properties (specified in the schedule  below)
\nincluding  flats, lands, cars, launch, business,  shares  in
\ncompanies  and partnership firms and house  properties.\t The
\npersons\t in  which names these properties stand\t are  hereby
\nwarned\tthat they shall not lease out, assign,\tsell,  mort-
\ngage, transfer or otherwise encumber or deal with them until
\nfurther orders from me. Anybody dealing with such properties
\nwould do so at his own risk or responsibility.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tappears that there were also other  similar  notices
\nissued\tby  the Commissioner. In response to  one  of  these
\nnotices,  Smt.\tMahamaya Devi put forward her claim  to\t the
\nownership of the property but her claim was rejected by\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 29.3. 1985  in
\nCase  No.  23 of 1984. Sri Kapur, learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents  states  that a petition for  special  leave  to
\nappeal\tto  this Court preferred by her\t was  also  rejected
\nsometime in 1985. This is not contradicted by the  petition-
\ners.  We may, therefore, proceed, for the purposes  of\tthis
\ncase,  on the footing that, though standing in the  name  of
\nMahamaya Devi, the property in question belongs to the\tfirm
\nSanchaita.\n<\/p>\n
288<\/span><\/p>\n
    Subsequently  the  property was brought to sale  by\t the
\nCommissioner.  Sealed tenders were invited for the  purchase
\nof  the\t properties specified in the schedule, by  a  notice
\npublished  in “The Statesman” on 7.3.86, on an “as is  where
\nis basis”. The notice specifically mentions that the posses-
\nsion of only three of the six items mentioned in the  notice
\nwas  with  the Commissioner and the  property  presently  in
\nquestion  was  not one of them. Asit Kumar  Mandal  and\t two
\nothers (the respondents before us, hereinafter compendiously
\nreferred  to as ‘the Mandais’)\toffered,  on   22.5.86,\t  to
\npurchase  the property for Rs. 1,26,000 in lump sum  subject
\nto negotiations in the matter. They undertook to deposit 25%
\nof the price on the acceptance of the offer and the  balance
\n“at  the  time of giving us the physical possession  of\t the
\nsaid  premises”. After a discussion with  the  Commissioner,
\nthey  deposited Rs.31,500 on 11.6.1986 and stated  in  their
\nletter of the same date to the Commissioner:
\n“We shall deposit the balance amount as and when called upon
\nto  do so. Thereafter, you will hand over to us the  posses-
\nsion of the said premises free from illegal trespassers”.
\nOn  12.6.86,  the  Commissioner accepted the  offer  of\t the
\nMandais subject to the following conditions, namely:
\n“(a) That the proposed sale in your favour under the  condi-
\ntions  mentioned  herein below is approved by  our  advisory
\nBoard.\n<\/p>\n
(b) That I\/4th (i.e. Rs. 31,500) of the total  consideration
\nmoney is at once paid by you to the Commissioner,  Sanchaita
\nInvestments, through bank draft or pay order.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  That  the balance of the consideration  money  is\tpaid
\nwithin 30th June, 1986.\n<\/p>\n
(d) That in default of payment of the consideration money as
\nstated\tabove, the earnest money (Rs.31,500) to be  paid  by
\nyou through bank draft or Pay Order as mentioned above shall
\nstand forfeited.\n<\/p>\n
289<\/span><\/p>\n
(e)  That  the\taforesaid sale is made on “as  is  where  is
\nbasis”.\n<\/p>\n
(f) That on payment of the full consideration money as above
\nwithin\tthe  date  fixed you may take  steps  for  obtaining
\npossession of the said entire premises and the\tCommissioner
\nwill help you for the said purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Mandais, thereafter, paid Rs.31,500 on 27.6.86 and\t Rs.
\n63,000 on 18.7.86 and wrote to the Commissioner as follows:
\n“Please sent us the draft sale certificate in respect of the
\nabove property for our approval on behalf of our clients and
\narrange immediately to give our clients vacant possession of
\nthe property as agreed upon.\n<\/p>\n
Please\tinform\tus if any objection was received by  you  in
\nrespect\t of the property pursuant to your  advertisement  in
\nthe Statesman dated March 7, 1986.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Commissioner referred the purchasers to his  lawyer  in
\nregard\tto  the preparation of the sale\t certificate  and  a
\ncertificate of sale deed was eventually issued in favour  of
\nthe  Mandais on 10.4.1987. The certificate referred  to\t the
\norders of the Supreme Court, the satisfaction of the Commis-
\nsioner, the fact of attachment and the absence of any objec-
\ntions  from Mahamaya Devi and conveyed the property  to\t the
\nMandals.\n<\/p>\n
    Having thus purchased the property, the Mandais request-
\ned  the Commissioner to give them vacant possession  of\t the
\nproperty  but  there was no response.  Thereupon,  on  17.9.
\n1987,  the  Mandais moved an application (being\t Matter\t No.
\n3737\/87)  before  the High Court praying that  they  may  be
\ngiven vacant possession of the property. It appears that, in
\nthe  meantime, they had come to know that the premises\twere
\noccupied by the following parties:\n<\/p>\n
Name of person\t\t\t Portion occupied\n<\/p>\n
1.  Paul  Brothers'(Textile Division)\tOne room  on  Ground
\nFloor
\n290<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2. Paul Brothers (Watch Repairing   One room on Ground Floor
\nDivision)\n<\/p>\n
3.   Paul Brothers (Electronics\t\t  -do-<\/p>\n
\nDivision)\n4.  Dulal Dutta and Panchanan Dutta\t   -do-\n5.  G. Dey\t\t\t\t  -do-\n6.  Phani Bhusan Ghosh\t\t   First Floor\n7.  Hari Narayan Gupta\t\t    Second Floor\n<\/pre>\n
These persons were made respondents to the application\tand,
\nalleging that they were all trespassers in occupation of the
\nproperty, a prayer was made that they should be directed  to
\nhand  over vacant possession of the property to\t the  appli-
\ncants. This prayer has been granted by the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court and, hence, these two petitions for leave  to
\nappeal,\t one by the three Paul Bros. and the other by  three
\nof the other four “objectors”. We have heard these petitions
\nat great length. We grant leave in both S.L.Ps. and  proceed
\nto dispose of the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioners claim that they are bona fide tenants in
\nthe  property.\tExcept\tfor petitioner H.N.  Gupta  who\t was
\ninducted as a tenant by Mahamava Devi, the others claim that
\nthey have been tenants even under the predecessors-in-inter-
\nest of Mahamaya Devi. They clam, therefore, that they can be
\nevicted only in accordance with due procedure prescribed  by
\nlaw after full contest and opportunity to lead evidence\t and
\ncannot be thrown out in summary proceedings like the present
\none just as if they were persons in unauthorised  possession
\nof the property or as if they were mere trespassers. On\t the
\nother hand, for the Mandais it is contended that once it  is
\nheld  that Mahamaya Devi was a benamidar for Sanchaita,\t the
\nCommissioner is entitled to take possession of the property,
\nremoving all present occupants including tenants therein and
\nselling\t the property at the maximum possible price free  of
\nall encumbrances so that the proceeds may be made  available
\nto the innumerable depositors who had been denuded of  their
\nlifetime  savings by the undesirable and fraudulent  activi-
\nties  of  the persons in charge of the\tfirm.  A  pernicious
\nevil, it is said, warrants
\n291<\/span>
\na drastic remedy and hence this Court, having regard to\t the
\nlarge  scale involvements of the firm. considered it  neces-
\nsary to arm the Commissioner with wide powers so that he may
\nbe able to gather in all the real assets of the firm without
\ndelay or obstruction for the benefit of the defrauded inves-
\ntors.  The  Mandais have, it is said, having regard  to\t the
\nterms of the orders passed by this Court and by the Calcutta
\nHigh  Court, purchased the property in the belief that\tthey
\nwould  not only get a perfect title but also speedy  posses-
\nsion  of  the property. If bona fide purchasers\t are  to  be
\nobstructed like this by all manner of claims, real or imagi-
\nnary,  it is argued, the properties of the firm can only  be
\nsold  for  a song and the entire object and purpose  of\t the
\nvarious directions of this Court would be frustrated. It is,
\ntherefore, contended that, even if the appellants are really
\ntenants\t in the property as claimed, their claims will\thave
\nto  yield to the paramount public interest of the  Sanchaita
\ninvestors.\n<\/p>\n
    We are unable to accept this contention of the  Mandais.
\nIt  is not maintainable either in principle or on the  terms
\nof the directions given by this Court. To take up the latter
\nfirst,\tthere is nothing in the terms of the orders of\tthis
\nCourt  or  of the notices of attachment or sale\t or  of\t any
\nother orders of the Calcutta High Court that vests an  abso-
\nlute  title in the auction purchasers of the  property\tfree
\nfrom all encumbrances. The order of the Court dated  27.9.83
\nonly authorised the Commissioner to attach properties  which
\nhe  believed  to belong to Sanchaita and  provided  for\t any
\nobjections  to the attachment being heard by the  designated
\nDivision Bench of the High Court. The attachment and sale of
\nthe  property presently in question were effected in  pursu-
\nance  of  this\torder. Any sale,  transfer,  encumbrance  or
\nalienation subsequent to the attachment could, no doubt,  be
\nimpugned but the attachment did not have the legal effect of
\ninvalidating  earlier interests of others subsisting in\t the
\nproperty. In fact also, the sale was on an “as is, where  is
\nbasis” i.e. without prejudice to the claims of other persons
\nin whose favour bona fide encumbrances or interests may have
\nbeen  created earlier qua the property. There appears to  be
\nsome force in the contention of the claimants that the price
\npaid by the appellant is not adequate to reflect the  market
\nvalue  of the property situated in an  important  commercial
\nlocality  in Calcutta at the present day if sold  free\tfrom
\nall  encumbrances but we shall leave this contention out  of
\naccount\t as there is no material before us on  this  aspect.
\nThe  order of 23.9.85, no doubt, goes a step further but  it
\nonly  empowers the Commissioner to remove  all\tunauthorised
\npersons and trespassers. The reference to vacant  possession
\nin the order has to be restricted only to
\n292<\/span>
\ncases where the property is in the possession of such  unau-
\nthorised persons or trespassers and cannot be read so as  to
\nempower\t the  Commissioner to evict forcibly,  or  seek\t the
\norders\tof the Court to evict summarily, persons who are  in
\nlawful\tpossession of the property. We should also  like  to
\npoint  out  that, in fact also, the Mandais  got  no  better
\nright  on  the terms of the auction and\t the  correspondence
\nthat followed. Though the Mandais referred in their  letters
\nto  vacant possession of the property, the sale was only  on
\nan  “as is, where is” basis and the Commissioner at no\ttime
\noffered\t or  assured the Mandais that they  would  get\tsuch
\nvacant\tpossession.  He\t only offered to help  them  in\t the
\nprocess\t to the extent permissible in law. He has made\tthis
\nposition explicit in the letters written by him.
\n    Sri Kapur, for the Mandais, placed considerable reliance
\non the common order of the Calcutta High Court dated 25.3.86
\nin Amar Mondal v. Commissioner, (Matter No. 122 of 1986) and
\nJagdish Chand Aggarwala v. Commissioner, (Matter No. 146  of
\n1985) to contend that the Mandais are entitled to get vacant
\npossession  of the property. In that case, Amar\t Mondal\t who
\nwas  the auction purchaser of an item of property (which  we
\nshall  call  ‘Property\tA’) at a sale  by  the\tCommissioner
\nsought to be put into possession by evicting the respondents
\n2  to 5 “who are unauthorised occupants” and  Jagdish  Chand
\nAggarwala,  whose highest bid at an auction for an  item  of
\nproperty  (which we shall call ‘Property B’) by the  Commis-
\nsioner could not be proceeded with because of an  injunction
\nobtained by respondents Nos. 6 & 7, sought the orders of the
\nCourt  “for completing the sale and giving delivery of\tpos-
\nsession\t by evicting the respondents”. So far as Property  A
\nis concerned, the Court found, for reasons which need not be
\nrepeated  here, that they were “unauthorised occupants”\t and
\nnot”bona fide tenants in occupation” and were, hence  liable
\nto be evicted. Likewise, in respect of Property B, the Court
\nconcluded  that\t the claims or’ tenancy put forward  by\t re-
\nspondents 6 & 7 “were frivolous”. These were, therefore, not
\ncases  where tenants were held liable to be evicted and\t the
\norder does not help the Mandais to the extent claimed.
\n    Sri\t Kapur,\t however,  relies strongly on  two  sets  of
\nobservations in this order. the first reference by him is to
\nan observation that any person claiming to have any interest
\nin the property should file his claim within 30 days of\t the
\nattachment and that any claim made beyond this period  would
\nbe barred by limitation and hence cannot be considered.\t The
\nsecond reference is to an observation that the Court is
\n293<\/span>
\nentitled  to  adjudicate’  upon all claims,  even  those  of
\npersons who claim to have any bona fide intermediate  inter-
\nests  in  the properties attached by the  Commissioner.\t The
\nCourt observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t “In  our opinion, therefore, once an attachment  is
\neffected by the Commissioner on the authority of his  powers
\nvested in him by the Supreme Court, not only persons  claim-
\ning  right,  title  and interest  independent  of  Sanchaita
\nInvestments  but  also claiming any bona  fide\tintermediate
\ninterest  created by Sanchaita Investments in favour of\t the
\nclaimant  should put forward to claim of objection.  It\t was
\nnot the intention of the Supreme Court that there should  be
\nproliferation  of litigation, result whereof would  be\tthat
\nthe insignificant part of the depositors’ money which should
\nbe  realised by the Commissioner would be wasted in  litiga-
\ntion. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court
\nwhen the Supreme Court by a recent order upheld the view  of
\nthe Bombay High Court that a claim of tenancy in respect  of
\na property attached by the Commissioner must be lodged\twith
\nthis Special Bench and not before any ordinary Civil  Court.
\nThe  attachment made by the Commissioner cannot\t be  equated
\nwith  an  attachment made by a Civil Court either  prior  to
\njudgment or in execution since there what is attached is the
\nright,\ttitle  and interest of either the defendant  on\t the
\njudgment debtor. In the present case, however, on the Scheme
\nframed\tby the Supreme Court what is being attached  is\t the
\nproperty itself so that any body having any lawful claim  in
\nwhatever  interest held by him, must put forward  his  claim
\nbefore\tthe Commissioner so that it can be adjudicated\tonce
\nfor  all in a proceeding before this Special Bench and\tthus
\navoid wasting litigation. We do not accept for a moment that
\nthis court’s jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of\t all
\nclaims\tpreferred  as  against the attachment  made  by\t the
\nCommissioner. The scope of our power must be determined with
\nreference to the intention of the Supreme Court referred  to
\nherein. Such power in our opinion covers adjudication of all
\nsorts  of claims or objections for the\tCommissioner’s\t.at-
\ntachment  and  sales of assets belonging to  the  beneficial
\nownership  of  Sanchaita  Investment  preferred\t or  brought
\nforward at any stage and also to make all inci-\n<\/p>\n
294<\/span><\/p>\n
dental and consequential orders as we may find necessary  to
\nassist\tthe  Commissioner in collecting\t the  assets  having
\nregard\tto the resistance faced by him from persons  putting
\nforward any claim of his own. In that view we hold that\t our
\npower  covers a case like the present one where\t even  after
\nthe objection has been overruled by this Court, others\thave
\ncome forward to resist the Commissioner from effecting\tsale
\nby  putting forward a claim of tenancy. Such a claim in\t our
\nopinion,  is really an objection to the attachment  when  we
\nconsider  it  on its substance, that comes well\t within\t the
\nscope  of our jurisdiction. It matters little  whether\tsuch
\njurisdiction is invoked by the Commissioner or the  claimant
\nor the proposed purchaser.”\n<\/p>\n
He  submitted, on the strength of these passages,  that\t the
\nclaims in the present case are liable to be dismissed (a) on
\nthe  ground  that they are time barred and (b) even  if\t the
\nclaimants are found to be bona fide tenants in the property.
\n    We are unable to agree. While, no doubt, this Court\t had
\nindicated  that claims and objections to attachments  should
\nbe filed within a period of thirty days, that period  cannot
\nbe read as if were a rigid rule of limitation prescribed  by
\nlaw.  The order also only says that, if objections  are\t not
\nput  forward  within a month, the property may be  sold\t and
\ndoes  not preclude objections being filed after\t the,  sale.
\nIndeed,\t the Division Bench did not rest its  conclusion  on
\nthis  ground  and proceeded to consider\t the  objections  on
\nmerits.\t We are also unable to read into the order any\tcon-
\nclusion\t of the Division Bench that even bona .fide  tenants
\nare liable to be evicted from the property. If that had been
\nso, the Bench need not have gone into a detailed  considera-
\ntion  of the merits of the claim of tenancy put\t forward  by
\nthe contesting respondents in that case. All that the  Bench
\nobserved in the passage extracted above was that all  claim-
\nants  to the properties subjected to attachment by the\tCom-
\nmissioner,  whether  as owners or as  intermediate  interest
\nholders\t (like\ttenants) or otherwise, have to\tput  forward
\ntheir  claims  for adjudication by the Division\t Bench.\t The
\nBench  did not proceed to hold, as suggested by\t Sri  Kapur,
\nthat  the  auction  purchasers are entitled  to\t get  vacant
\npossession  of the property free from all  encumbrances\t and
\nthat even bona .fide tenants can be directed to be summarily
\nevicted from the property in pursuance of the
\n295<\/span>
\norders of this Court. We are unable to see in this order any
\nobservation that could legitimately have induced the Mandais
\nto believe that they would be entitled to evict even  lawful
\ntenants\t from the property by purchasing it at\tthe  auction
\nsale.\n<\/p>\n
    In principle also, this contention is not well  founded.
\nThe object of the directions given by this Court was to\t cut
\nshort the proliferation of litigation and to ensure that the
\nCommissioner  is able to gather in expeditiously the  assets
\nof  Sanchaita which were dissipated or siphoned off  by\t the
\npersons\t in charge of the firm. Thus, if the  firm’s  moneys
\nhad  been  utilised to purchase properties in  the  name  of
\nvarious\t individuals  benami such property had to  be  taken
\nback  by the Commissioner from such benamidars. Also,  where
\nthe said benamidars or other persons put up frivolous claims
\nto  the property or its possession without the semblance  of
\nany legal title to its ownership or possession, such  claims
\ncould and should be rejected by the Court. But this  princi-
\nple  cannot  apply to bona fide interests of others  in\t the
\nproperty. For instance, suppose Sanchaita’s moneys had\tbeen
\nadvanced  on the mortgage of an item of immovable  property,
\nall  that  the Commissioner would be entitled,\tlegally\t and
\nequitably, would be to call in the mortgage moneys  (princi-
\npal  and  interest) and not the entire property\t itself.  An
\nauction\t purchaser  of such a property cannot  get  anything
\nhigher than the interest Sanchaita itself could have claimed
\nin respect of the property. Likewise, if Sanchiata’s  moneys
\nhad been invested in a property which had been bona fide let
\nout to tenants, Sanchaita would have paid only the value  of
\nthe  property so encumbered and its rights in  the  property
\ncan only be subject to those tenancy rights. Sanchaita could
\nnot have a right in respect of the property superior to that
\nwhich  its vendor had. Similar would be the  position  where
\nSanchaita or its benamidars had, after acquiring a property,
\ncreated a bona fide tenancy or other encumbrance in  respect
\nof  that property, in respect of independant  outsiders\t who
\nacquire\t such interest for consideration. To say  that\tSan-
\nchaita,\t through  the  Commissioner, would  be\tentitled  to
\nvacant possession even from such tenants, or free from\tsuch
\nencumbrances,  would result in its being able to  realise  a
\nlarger\tinterest in the property than it acquired. Not\tonly
\nthis,  the  result of any such conclusion would\t ensure\t the
\nbenefit\t of, not Sanchaita, but of the auction purchaser  of
\nthe  property. Having bid for and acquired the right,  title
\nand  interest  of  Sanchaita in the property,  he  would  be
\nenable to get vacant possession which Sanchiata, even if  it
\nhad continued to be active and properous, could not have got
\nexcept by due process of law.\n<\/p>\n
296<\/span><\/p>\n
We have, therefore, no doubt that this Court, by its  orders
\ndated 4.5.83 and 27.9.83 intended only that the firm, or the
\nauction purchasers at the sales effected by the\t Commission-
\ners, should be able to clear the property of trespassers and
\nunauthorised  persons  and not that even bona  fide  tenants
\ncould  be  got evicted straight away in\t pursuance  thereof.
\nNormally,  even trespassers and unauthorised persons  cannot
\nbe  thrown out except by recourse to legal proceedings\tbut,
\nhaving\tregard\tto  the large scale  dealings,\tthe  special
\ncircumstances  and the desperate situation, this Court\tmade
\nan  exception and made it possible for the  Commissioner  to
\nget false and frivolous claimants out of the way by a  quick
\nprocedure  but nothing more. We are, therefore,\t of  opinion
\nthat  if  the  Court, on a consideration  of  the  materials
\nplaced\tby the claimants or objectors, comes to the  conclu-
\nsion  that they are not mere stooges or false claimants\t but
\nhave  a bona fide fight to possession as against  Sanchaita,
\nit  cannot direct their eviction but should leave it to\t the
\nauction\t purchaser to initiate such eviction proceedings  in
\nthe  normal  course and in accordance with law,\t as  may  be
\navailable to him against the claimants\/objectors.
\n    Sri\t Kapur laid considerable stress on the aspect  that,
\nunless\tvacant possession can be had, no one  will  purchase
\nany  property at the auction sales conducted by the  Commis-
\nsioner\tas no one would like to face further  litigation  to
\nsecure\tpossession  of the property. He submitted  that\t the
\nobject\twhich the Court had in mind was to effectuate  sales
\nof Sanchaita properties by assuring vacant possession with a
\nview to secure maximum price therefore and to ensure expedi-
\ntious return to the Sanchaita investors of as much of  their
\ndeposits  as possible and that this object would be  totally
\nfrustrated  if people were encouraged to put in\t hurdles  in
\nthe  way  which will depreciate the value of  the  property.
\nThis  contention  proceeds,  only partially,  on  a  correct
\nbasis.\tIt is true that there should be a quick and  expedi-
\ntious  realisation of the properties that really  belong  to
\nSanchaita. That is why the Court empowered the\tCommissioner
\nto  attach and sell properties that, in his opinion,  really
\nbelong\tto Sanchaita though ostensibly held in the names  of
\nothers\tand  also  devised a quick and\tsummary\t method\t for
\nadjudication  upon claims and removal of  obstructions.\t But
\nthis order cannot be availed of to ride rough-shod over\t the
\nrights and interests of others in the properties which\thave
\nbeen created bona fide. Third parties who have acquired real
\ninterests  in the property, either independent of,  or\teven
\nthrough,  Sanchaita cannot be called upon to give  up  their
\nrights.\t To  do so would be to do more than  merely  realise
\nwhat
\n297<\/span>
\nrightfully belongs to Sanchaitas; it would amount to confer-
\nring  on  Sanchaita  a better title than it  had,  in  fact,
\nacquired.  The depositors or investors in  Sanchaita  cannot
\nclaim any such rights. It is, therefore, difficult to accept
\nthe  ground urged by Sri Kapoor as entitling the Mandais  to
\nan interest that can ignore or override all manner of rights
\nand interests in the auctioned properties.
\n    For the above reasons, we are unable to accept the\tplea
\nthat  the Mandais are entitled to get vacant  possession  of
\nthe  premises, irrespective of the nature of  the  interests
\nthe claimants had therein and that, on this ground alone, we
\nshould\tuphold\tthe order of the Division Bench.  We  shall,
\ntherefore, proceed to consider how far the claim of each one
\nof the appellants before us to continue in possession of the
\nproperty, unless and until evicted in due course by  process
\nof law, is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    Though the High Court has set out in extenso the details
\nof  the\t claims\t put forward by the  various  claimants,  we
\nconsider  it necessary to set out, in some detail, the\tevi-
\ndence  put  forward by the claimants as the  principal\tcom-
\nplaint of every one of the claimants is that a\tconsiderable
\nvolume of evidence adduced by him has been summarily brushed
\naside by the Division Bench. We shall, therefore, proceed to
\ndo this:\n<\/p>\n
1. PAUL BROTHERS
\n    The petitioners in SLP 3258\/59 have described themselves
\nas “Paul Brothers”. A complete paper book containing  copies
\nof  a number of documents has been placed before us to\tsub-
\nstantiate  their  claim that they have been tenants  in\t the
\npremises since a very long time. These are:
\n“(1)  A\t letter addressed by one Ramakrishna Paul  to  Dilip
\nKumar Paul and Mihir Kumar Paul, Landlords, seeking  permis-
\nsion  to make some alterations in the Radio  and  Electrical
\nshop and a reply thereto dated 8.4.75 by Dilip and a similar
\nreply  to Amar Nath Paul (Paul Brothers) in respect  of\t the
\nwatch repairing shop;\n<\/p>\n
298<\/span><\/p>\n
(2)  A letter intimating “Amar Nath Paul (Paul\tBros.),\t Re-
\npairing Shop” that Satyanarayan Paul had died on 10.8.66 and
\nthat  the  four signatories Ashok Paul,\t Dilip\tKumar  Paul,
\nMihir  Kumar Paul and Mrs. Suchitra Kundu had  succeeded  as
\nlandlords entitled to the rents thereafter;
\n(3)(a) A stamped deed of partnership dated 14.6.61 drawn  up
\nby  B.M. Motilal Advocate, between Amar Nath Paul,  Robindra
\nNath Paul. Abani Bhushan Paul, Arun Kumar Paul, Kiron  Chan-
\ndra  Paul  and Gopal Chandra Paul (all sons of\tMohni  Mohan
\nPaul)  sharing\tprofits equally. The firm is  said  to\thave
\nstarted\t business  in Watch Repairing and  Tailoring  w.e.f.
\n14.4.61\t at  the suit premises under the name and  style  of
\nPaul  Bros.  and is said to have been  registered  with\t the
\nRegistrar of Firms.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Three stamped deeds of partnership drawn by B.M. Motilal
\n(Advocate)  and dated 25.4.75 have also been  produced.\t The
\nfirst of these, of Paul Brothers (Watch Division), Amar Nath
\nPaul,  RobindraNath Paul, shows Abani Bhushan Paul and\tRama
\nKishore\t Paul (sons of Mohni Mohan Paul) as  having  started
\nand been carrying on business as watch dealers and repairers
\nsince 15.4.74 in the premises sharing profits equally  with-
\nout a formal deed till then. The second is of Paul  Brothers
\n(Radio and Electrical Division) in which Kiron Chandra Paul,
\nAmiya Kumar Paul, Samir Kumar Paul, Amar Nath Paul (sons  of
\nMohni  Mohan  Paul) and Shyama Ran jan Paul  (son  of  Lalit
\nMohan  Paul) are partners with Amar Nath having a 10%  share
\nand  the others 22.5% share each. The deed recites that\t the
\nabove  partnership started a business in radio and  electri-
\ncals  on  15.4.74 at the suit premises as well as  at  1951,
\nMahatma\t Gandhi Road, Calcutta without a formal deed  having
\nbeen drawn up till that date. The third deed is between Arun
\nKumar  Paul, Benoy Kumar Paul, Gopal Chandra Paul  and\tAmar
\nNath Paul (all sons of Mohni Mohan Paul) in respect of\tPaul
\nBrothers–Tailoring  Division with Amar Nath Paul  having  a
\n10%  share and the others 30% each. This deed  also  recites
\nthat the business had started earlier with effect
\n299<\/span>
\nfrom 15.4.74 but that no formal deed had been drawn up\ttill
\nthen.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  A\tdeed of partnership dated 8.5. 1980, also  on  stamp
\npaper and witnessed by B.M. Motilal, is between Kiran  Chan-
\ndra Paul, Amiya Kumar Paul, Samir Kumar Paul (sons of  Mohni
\nMohan  Paul)  and  Promotho Nath Paul (son  of\tLalit  Mohan
\nPaul).\tBy this deed Shama Ranjan and Amar Nath retire\tfrom
\nPaul Brothers–Radio and Electricals w.e.f. 13.4.80  leaving
\nthe remaining four to share the profits equally.
\n(4)  More  than 225 rent receipts in favour  of\t “Amar\tNath
\nPaul”, “Amar Nath Paul and others”, or “Amar Nath Paul (Paul
\nBrothers)”  have  been produced. They are  spread  over\t the
\nperiod\tfrom 1962 to November 1987 (except October  1965  to
\nMarch  1968). They are signed by S.N. Pal between  May\t1962
\nand  September\t1965, by Ashok Paul between April  1968\t and
\nOctober\t 1971, by Dilip and Mihir between October  1971\t and
\nSeptember   1977  and by Mahamaya Devi\tfrom  October\t1977
\nonwards. Rent receipts from April 1962 to September 1987  in
\nfavour\tof  “Amar Nath Paul”, “Amar Nath Paul  (Paul  Bros.)
\nWatch  Makers Shop” have been produced. Also copies of\trent
\nreceipts  in favour of “Ramkrishna Paul”, “Ramakrishna\tPaul
\nand  others” in respect of one shop room in the\t north\twest
\ncorner covering the period from March 1974 onwards signed by
\nDilip and Mihir and Mahamaya Devi are also produced.
\n(5) Rent receipts and a deposit receipt showing that a third
\nshop situated in the north west corner of the ground  floor,
\npreviously occupied by one Tarak Nath Roy, was taken over by
\nthe  Paul  Bros. at a rent of Rs.75 p.m.  in  December\t1973
\nafter  purchasing  the\tassets of  the\tearlier\t tenant\t for
\nRs.200.\n<\/p>\n
(6) Three electricity bills of October ’69, January ’75 and
\n300<\/span>
\nMay ’88 in respect of the premises issued in the name of one
\nD.P. Paul, claimed to be an uncle of the Pauls and Electric-
\nity  bills in the name of Paul Bros Radio Division of  April
\n’80 and April ’88 have also been produced.\n<\/p>\n
(7) Three telephone bills of 1969, 1973 and 1977 in the name
\nof Paul Brothers (and three electricity bills of March\t’74,
\nMarch  ’77 and February ’88 in the name of Tarak  Nath\tRoy)
\nhave been produced.\n<\/p>\n
(8)  Receipts  dated 2.5.61, 10.5.62,  7.5.63,\t25.3.72\t and
\n28.12.87  by the Corporation of Calcutta being fees  in\t re-
\nspect  of the Tailoring Shop in the premises for  the  years
\n1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1971-72 and 1987-88 in favour  of
\nPaul Bros. (Partners Sri Arun Kumar Paul and others). Corpo-
\nration\tReceipts ( 18 in number) for trade licence  fees  in
\nrespect of radio and watch business carried on in the  prem-
\nises covering the years 1962-63 to 1987-88 (except  1984-85,
\n1981-82, 1980-81, 1975-76, 1972-73 and 1971-72) in the\tname
\nof  Paul Bros. are produced. These describe the partners  of
\nthe firm differently as “Amiya Paul and others”, “Arun Kumar
\nPaul  and  others”  and “Amar Nath Paul and  others”  7\t fee
\nreceipts for trade licences issued to the watch division  of
\nPaul  Bros. covering the years 1987-88,\t 1986-87,   1985-86,
\n1983-84,   1982-83,   1981-82,\t1980-81,  1979-80,  1978-79,
\n1977-78, 1976-77, 1975-76 and 1974-75 describe the  partners
\nas  “Rabindra  Nath  Paul and others”. There  are  also\t fee
\nreceipts  in respect of licence fees for the years  1961-62,
\n1971-72, 1972-73, 1987-88 in respect of the watch  repairing
\nshop in the name of “Paul Bros. (Amar Nath Paul & Others)”.
\n(9)  A letter dated 17.7.70 addressed by the  Government  of
\nWest Bengal to the Accountant General, copy endorsed to\t M\/s
\nPaul Brothers at the address of the suit premises and  other
\ncorrespondence\tbetween\t 1970 and 1973\twith  the  tailoring
\ndivision of the said firm at the same address. Copies of two
\nletters addressed to the radio and watches
\n301<\/span>
\nshop  of Paul Bros. at this address between July  1965\thave
\nalso been produced.\n<\/p>\n
(10) Challans for payment of self-assessment tax of  Rs..190
\nfor  assessment\t year 1976-77 by  Paul\tBrothers  (Tailoring
\nDivision)  on 12.8.76 from this address. Also  produced\t are
\ncertificates  from the Income Tax Department that the  three
\nPaul Bros. at the above address are being assessed to income
\ntax since assessment year 1975-76\/1976-77.
\n(11)  Orders u\/s 158 and demand notices u\/s 156 of  the\t In-
\ncome-tax  Act in respect of assessment years 1969-70,  1968-
\n69,  1967-68  have been produced, the former of\t which\tevi-
\ndences\tthe  constitution of Paul Bros. A  declaration\thave
\nbeen  filed  before a Presidency  Magistrate,  Calcutta,  on
\n26.8.65 by some of the Pauls referred to above to the effect
\nthat they are the partners in the firm from 14.4.61 and that
\nthey  have  filed income-tax returns for  three\t years.\t The
\ndeclaration also states:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “2.  That  we have been carrying  on\tbusiness  as
\ntailors, watch repairers and sellers of cut piece cloth\t and
\nwatches from 1st day of Baisakh, 1368 B.S. and also we\thave
\nstarted\t radio manufacturing\/sales\/service  department\tfrom
\nsecond year of our business i.e. 1369 B .S. We have no other
\nbusiness save and except those mentioned in this  paragraph,
\nthis is true to our knowledge”.\n<\/p>\n
(12)  Documents\t showing the registration of  the  following
\nfirms with the Registrar of Firms:\n<\/p>\n
Date\t      Firm\n10.1.74 Paul Bros. (Watch) Division)\n10.6.74 Paul Bros-\n\t     (Radio and Electrical Division)\n20.9.61 Paul Bros.\n302<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
(13)  A central excise licence dated 20.1.1965 and a  postal
\ndepartment  licence of 24.8.62 in respect of the  radio\t and
\nelectrical  shop in the name of Paul Bros. with Shri  Kitart
\nChandra Paul as a partner.\n<\/p>\n
(14)  Several letters, notices, receipts etc. from  the\t In-
\ncometax Department and Central Excise Department as well  as
\ncorrespondence from the Life Insurance Corporation of  India
\nand premium receipts have been produced but these are not of
\nmuch  help except to show that they were addressed  to\tPaul
\nBros. or Arun Kumar Paul or Rabindra Kumar Paul or Amar Nath
\nPaul or A.K. Paul or Amarendra Nath Paul and others or Abani
\nBhushan Paul or Kiran Chandra Paul, or Gopal Chandra Paul at
\nthe suit premises.\n<\/p>\n
(15) Extracts from the assessment registers of the  Corpora-
\ntion of Calcutta for two years. The first of these shows the
\nname of the owner as Avamoyee Paul and that of the  occupier
\nas  Taraknath Roy and others. Endorsements thereon show\t the
\ncalculation of the annual value on the basis of the  follow-
\ning rents:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Rs. p.m.
\n“I   Tarak Nath Roy\t      25.00
\n     Panchanan Dutta\t      25.00
\n     (Watch Shop)\t      41.00
\n     (Tailoring Shop)\t      44.00
\n\t\t\t       7.50
\n\t\t\t       7.50
\nII   Phani Bhusan Ghose\t       45.00
\nIII  Owner\t\t\t45.00\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    ————–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       240.00″\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    ————–\n<\/p>\n
The second of these documents shows the name of the owner as
\n“Estate of Avamoyee Paul C\/o Shri Mihir Paul
\n303<\/span>
\nand  Brothers” but this is struck off and replaced by  “Smt.
\nMahamaya Devi (In the premises)”. Against the column  “occu-
\npants”\tthe name of Taraknath Roy and others is replaced  by
\n“Smt. Mahamaya Devi and others”. This extract also contains,
\nwhat  apparently are later, endorsements of details as\tfol-
\nlows:<\/p>\n
\n\"R.S. (Road Side) Shops\n\t\t\t\t\tRent p.m.\n      I\t   Ramakrishna Paul\t\tsays  75\n\t   (Goldsmith)\n\t   (Radio Amarnath Paul\t\t\"     48\n\t   (Tailoring) Paul Bros.\t\"     48\n\t   (Goldsmith Panchanan\t\t\"     44\n\t   Dutta (Dulal Dutta)\n2. DULAL CHANDRA DUTTA\n<\/pre>\n
    The tenancy in respect of a backside shop on the  ground
\nfloor  is claimed as having belonged initially to  two\tper-
\nsons,  Panchanan and Dulal Dutta. Of these, Panchanan  Dutta
\nappears to have died in 1981 and it is only Dulal Dutta\t who
\nis the claimant now. He states that the property belonged to
\nSatya  Narain Paul then to Dilip Kumar Paul and Mihir  Kumar
\nPaul and then to Mahamaya Devi. In the case of this claimant
\nthere is no direct evidence of tenancy in the form of a rent
\ndeed  or rental agreement. About 51 rent receipts have\tbeen
\nproduced but all these receipts purport to have been  issued
\nonly  by Mahamaya Devi. No receipts have been  produced\t for
\nany  earlier  period though the claimant says  he  has\tbeen
\ntenant\tof  the property since 1973; it is stated  that\t the
\nrent receipts issued in the joint names by Dilip Kumar\tPaul
\nand Mihir Kumar Paul are missing from his custody. The\tHigh
\nCourt  has  said  that there  are  several  inconsistencies,
\ndefects\t and errors in the receipts that had  been  produced
\nand,  though  a number of other documents have\tbeen  placed
\nbefore\tus  here, none of these receipts or  copies  thereof
\nhave  been produced. According to the  claimant’s  affidavit
\nfiled before the High Court, he started his work as a  gold-
\nsmith in the premises in 1973, the tenancy of which stood in
\nthe name of one Panchanan Dutta and that he also contributed
\nrents to
\n304<\/span>
\nPanchanan  Dutta “who used to pay the rents in his  name  to
\nthe  owner of the premises”. No receipts in the joint  names
\nof Panchanan Dutta and the claimant have been produced.\t The
\nextracts  from\tthe records of the Corporation\treferred  to
\nearlier show Panchanan Dutta as the occupant and the  claim-
\nant’s name does not figure therein. The claim of tenancy is,
\nhowever,  sought  to be established by the  following  docu-
\nments:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  A\tcertificate of the Gold Control\t Authority  of\t1976
\nrecognising  the claimant as a goldsmith with his  place  of
\nbusiness and residence at 6, Doctor’s Lane, Calcutta  subse-
\nquently shifted to the suit premises w.e.f. 4.11.81;\n<\/p>\n
(b) A certificate from the Bangia Swarna Silpi Smithi  dated
\n12.8.75\t showing  the claimant’s place of work at  the\tsuit
\npremises and a letter of 13.11.1987 from the Samithi stating
\nthat  the  claimant has been maintaining a Khata  under\t the
\nGold Control Act from 1976;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  A\tpetition for remand by the police dated\t 18.9.75  in
\nconnection  with  a  criminal case  showing  the  claimant’s
\naddress at the suit premises;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  A search list of 23.9.75 on complaint no. 657  u\/s\t 380
\nI.P.C.\tshowing\t that certain items were seized\t from  Dulal
\nDutta’s\t shop in the suit premises; and a petition from\t the
\nprosecution  seeking impleadment of Dulal Dutta of the\tsuit
\npremises as a co-accused in connection with the above case;\n<\/p>\n
(e) A letter from the Police of a complaint from the  Corpo-
\nration against the claimant for not having obtained a  trade
\nlicence\t for  1979-80 in time and a  municipal\tlicence\t fee
\nreceipt dated 19.12.80 in respect of the year 1978-79 issued
\nby the Corporation of Calcutta in favour of the claimant and
\nPanchanan Dutta;\n<\/p>\n
(f) A summons issued by the Corporation to the claimant on
\n305<\/span>
\n6.2.81 showing his address as at the suit premises; and\n<\/p>\n
(g)  A letter dated 10.6.81 by the claimant to the  Superin-
\ntendent, Central Excise asking for a change of address\tfrom
\nDoctor’s Lane to the suit premises.\n<\/p>\n
(h)  An extract got in 1988 from the assessment book of\t the
\nCorporation which shows Smt. Mahamaya Devi as the owner\t and
\nShri  Phani Bhusan Ghose, Shri Amarnath Paul and Shri  Dulal
\nDutta  as the occupants. This purports to be the entry\twith
\neffect from 3\/66-67 to 4\/88.\n<\/p>\n
3. PHANI BHUSAN GHOSH
\n    Phani Bhusan Ghosh, who claims tenancy in respect of the
\nfirst  floor  of the suit premises comprising of  three\t bed
\nrooms and one sitting room besides other conveniences. Ghosh
\nis  a  retired Government servant. He claims  to  have\tbeen
\ninducted  as  a\t tenant in 1948 by Satyanarayan\t Paul  at  a
\nmonthly rent of Rs.75 p.m. According to him, on the death of
\nSatyanarayan,  his  son Ashok Paul used to  grant  rent\t re-
\nceipts;\t thereafter,  consequent on a  partition  among\t the
\nheirs of Satyanarayan, Dilip Kumar Paul and Mihir Kumar Paul
\nused to issue the receipts until, in October 1977, they sold
\nthe  suit premises to Mahamaya Devi. Though it iS not  clear
\nwhether there was any original tenancy agreement in 1948 and
\nno rent receipts of that time have been produced, the claim-
\nant relied on the following documents in support of the plea
\nof tenancy:\n<\/p>\n
(a) A photo copy of a certified copy of the plaint in Eject-
\nment Suit No. 1095\/61 filed by Satyanarayan Paul against the
\nclaimant for eviction and khas possession which recites that
\nthe claimant was a tenant of Satyanarayan in respect of\t the
\npremises; (Incidentally, the schedule to this deed refers to
\nTaraknath  Roy, Panchanan Dutta, Dulal K. Dey  and  Amarnath
\nPaul (Paul Bros.) as the tenants on the ground floor).\n<\/p>\n
(b) An undated letter from Dilip Kumar Paul and Mihir Kumar
\n306<\/span>
\nPaul  informing the claimant of the sale of the Premises  to
\nMahamaya Devi and a letter dated 9.10.77 from Prabir Kar, an
\nAdvocate  on  behalf  of Mahamaya Devi\tasking\tclaimant  to
\nattorn\tto Mahamaya Devi as she had purchased  the  property
\nfrom the two Pauls;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  Three  receipts  issued by Ashok Paul  in\t1969,  three
\nissued\tby  Dilip and Mihir in 1971, 1976 and 1977  and\t two
\nissued by Mahamaya Devi for July’ 78 and September’ 87;\n<\/p>\n
(e) A certificate dated 4.1. 1988 from the Geological Survey
\nof  India stating that the address of the claimant had\tbeen
\nrecorded on 20.3.52 in its official records as being at\t the
\nsuit premises.\n<\/p>\n
4. HARI NARA YAN GUPTA
\n    This  person  claims tenancy in the\t second\t floor.\t One
\nfeature that distinguishes this claimant from others is that
\nhe claims to have been a tenant in the property under  Maha-
\nmaya Devi since 1982. The plea of Gupta is that he became  a
\ntenant\tof the flat on the second floor under Mahamaya\tDevi
\non  a rent of Rs.350 p.m. vide an agreement  dated  7.1.1982
\nand  that he had been regularly paying the rent to her\tever
\nsince  upto  September 1987. The agreement  produced  is  an
\nunregistered  agreement.  There are only two  rent  receipts
\ndated January 1983 and September 1987 produced in support of
\nthe  claim.  The photostat copies of the  extract  from\t the
\nrecords\t of  the  Corporation which have  been\treferred  to
\nearlier\t show  the occupants as Mahamaya Devi and  then\t one
\nHarindra Nath Chakraborty. H.N. Gupta claims to be running a
\ntea  stall  on\tS.P. Banerjee Road and to  have\t taken\tthis
\npremises on rent.\n<\/p>\n
    We shall now consider the claims of each of these claim-
\nants individually, starting with Hari Narayan Gupta.\n<\/p>\n
1. Hari Narayan Gupta:\n<\/p>\n
Sri  Kapur  contended  that since it has  now  been  finally
\ndecided
\n307<\/span>
\nthat Mahamaya Devi never really owned the premises  herself,
\nshe  could not have validly created a tenancy in  favour  of
\nGupta. We do not think this conclusion necessarily  follows.
\nIt  is true that the finding that Mahamaya Devi was  only  a
\nbenamidar  for\tSanchaita has become final but it  does\t not
\nfollow that any tenancy created by her is invalid, unless it
\ncan  be shown that, in creating such interest, she acted  in
\nbreach\tof trust and contrary to the interest of  Sanchaita.
\nIf  she had put Gupta in possession of the property  as\t her
\nstooge or, if Gupta had taken the property from her on\trent
\ncollusively or with full knowledge that the property  really
\nbelonged  to Sanchaitas the position would be different\t but
\nif  Gupta is an independent third party with no such  notice
\nor  intention and had been inducted by her as a tenant\tbona
\nfide, all the Sanchaita can claim is that she should account
\nto  firm for the rents derived by her from the\tproperty  in
\nthe  past and that the firm or the Commissioner or the\tauc-
\ntion  purchaser\t should be entitled to the  rents  from\t the
\nproperty  as from the date of its attachment by the  Commis-
\nsioner.\n<\/p>\n
    Examining  the facts and the evidence from the  perspec-
\ntive,  it does seem that Gupta has not been able  to  adduce
\nany evidence to satisfactorily establish that he was a\tbona
\nfide tenant under Mahamaya Devi. It is difficult to  believe
\nthat  this tea-stall owner took the suit premises on a\trent
\nof  Rs.350  from Mahamaya Devi. There is  no  consistent  or
\nsatisfactory  evidence of such tenancy. We are\tinclined  to
\nagree  with the conclusion of the High Court that Gupta\t was
\nnot  a bona fide tenant in the property as claimed and\tthat
\nhe is liable to evicted from the premises.\n<\/p>\n
2. Dulal Dutta:\n<\/p>\n
    Turning  next to the case of Dulal Dutta, we  have\tgone
\nthrough\t the  documents placed before us carefully  and\t are
\nconstrained to observe that this claimant has also not\tbeen
\nable to establish his bona fide tenancy of the premises. The
\noriginal  trade licence shows that the claimant had  started
\nhis  business at No. 6, Doctor’s Lane and that this was\t got
\nchanged\t to the address presently in question only  in\t1981
\nbut,  according to him, he had started working at  the\tsuit
\npremises even in 1973. The police remand papers and corpora-
\ntion  notices no doubt indicate that the claimant was  found
\nat this address in 1975 and 1978-\n<\/p>\n
308<\/span><\/p>\n
79  but\t these papers are not sufficient  to  establish\t the
\nclaimant’s  plea of tenancy. Admittedly, even  according  to
\nhim. Panchanan Dutta was originally the tenant of the  prem-
\nises  and  the claimant seems to have had some\tworking\t ar-
\nrangement  with\t him, Panchanan Dutta is said to  have\tdied
\nsometime  in 1981 and the change of address for excise\tpur-
\nposes  seems to show that the claimant moved into the  prem-
\nises wholly thereafter. But the question is not whether\t the
\nclaimant  was in occupation of the premises but\t whether  he
\nwas  a\tbona fide tenant therein. As to this,  there  is  no
\nproof or evidence except the few odd rent receipts  purport-
\nedly  issued by Mahamaya Devi the genuineness of  which\t has
\nnot been accepted by the High Court. It was argued that even
\nif  Dulal  Dutta is treated as a sub-tenant or as  being  in
\nadverse possession, the landlords’ right to evict him  would
\nbe  time  barred. But neither of these stands was  taken  by
\nDulal  Dutta  and his adverse possession, even\tif  claimed,
\ncould  not  have started before 1981 and so no\tquestion  of
\ntime  bar  could arise. In the circumstances,  we  are\tcon-
\nstrained  to  uphold the findings of the Division  Bench  in
\nrespect\t of  the portion of the suit  premises\toccupied  by
\nDulal Dutta.\n<\/p>\n
3. Phani Bhusan Ghose:\n<\/p>\n
    We\tnext  turn  to the case of Phani  Bhusan  Ghose.  On
\nbehalf\tof the Mandals, it is submitted that the  pieces  of
\nevidence  relied on by the  claimant amount to nothing.\t Sri
\nKapur submits that, as per the extracts from the Corporation
\nrecords\t filed in the case, one Avamoyee Paul was the  owner
\nof  the premises in 1948 and there is nothing to  show\tthat
\neither\tSatyanarayan Paul or his legal heirs were  ever\t the
\nowners\tof  the property. The partition deed  has  not\tbeen
\nproduced. The rent receipts produced contain lacunae, errors
\nand inconsistencies. The genuineness of the receipts and the
\nletters\t produced is not accepted. Advocate Prabir Kar,\t who
\nis alleged to have sent the attornment notice, is alleged to
\nbe  a reputed agent of Sanchaitas. So far as the  plaint  of
\n1961  is concerned, he points out, there is  no\t explanation
\ngiven  as to what made the claimant obtain a certified\tcopy
\nof  the plaint in 1972 and there is also no evidence  as  to
\nthe  outcome  of  the suit. The records\t of  the  Geological
\nSurvey had not been summoned and it is also curious that the
\nclaimant  has  produced a certificate of 1988  to  show\t the
\nclaimant’s  address  in 1952 but not his recent\t or  present
\naddress as recorded therein.\n<\/p>\n
We are of opinion that these objections cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
309<\/span><\/p>\n
Leaving aside the rent receipts and other correspondence the
\nauthenticity of which cannot be taken for granted, there  is
\nenough\tevidence to sustain the claim of the applicant.\t The
\ncertified copy of the plaint shows that Ghosh was tenant  of
\nthe  first floor under Satya Narayan Paul who claimed to  be
\nthe  owner  of the premises. It does not show  that  he\t was
\ntenant\tsince  1948 but read, with the\tcertificate  of\t the
\nGeological Survey of India, it does show that Ghosh was\t the
\ntenant between 1952 and 1961 in the premises. No  foundation
\nhas been laid and no material has been adduced to show\tthat
\nthe  copy  of the plaint is not genuine or cannot  be  acted
\nupon  or  that there was no such suit in  1961\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t as alleged. What happened to the suit or  what\t de-
\nfence  was raised by Ghosh to the suit is irrelevant in\t the
\nabsence of any suggestion, or any material to indicate, that
\nGhosh  had  been in fact evicted in pursuance of  the  order
\npassed\tin the suit by the date of the present\tproceedings.
\nThere  is  also no information placed before us\t as  to\t the
\npersons who were the legal representatives of Avomoyee\tPaul
\nor that Dilip and Mihir did not at all because the owners of
\nthe property. On the other hand, the extract from the Corpo-
\nration records at the relevant time, shows the owner of\t the
\npremises to be:\n<\/p>\n
“Estate of Avamoyee Paul c\/o Sri Mihir Paul and Bros.”
\nThis indicates a connection of Mihir Paul with the  premises
\nand the sale deed of 1977, the genuineness of which is\tnot.
\nand cannot be, in dispute (for that, verily, is the basis of
\nthe  title of Sanchaita to the property in  question)  shows
\nthat  she  purchased  it from Mihir and\t Dilip.\t It  is,  of
\ncourse,\t theoretically possible that Ghosh had been  evicted
\nfrom  the  premises by Satyanarayan and\t that  the  receipts
\nproduced  from\tDilip and Mihir as well as  the\t letters  of
\nauthority produced are not genuine. But this is a far-reach-
\ning assumption and it cannot be presumed that all these\t are
\ngot-up\tdocuments,  in\tthe absence of\tsome  foundation  or
\nmaterial  for the suggestion. In our opinion,  the  claimant
\nhas let in sufficient material to show that he was a  tenant
\nin  the premises long before Mahamaya Devi entered into\t the
\npicture.\n<\/p>\n
4. Paul Brothers:\n<\/p>\n
    Now turning to the case of Paul Brothers, our  narration
\nabove shows that there was a mass of evidence adduced by the
\nparties in
\n310<\/span>
\nsupport\t of  their tenancy in the premises since  long.\t The
\ngrievance of these–and indeed also the other–claimants has
\nbeen that the High Court has failed to apply its mind to the
\nevidence produced in support of each of the claimants. It is
\nsubmitted that an analysis of the judgment of the High Court
\n(which\truns  to 52 pages) will show that  the\tHigh  Court,
\nafter setting out the preliminary facts, the contents of the
\naffidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits\t and
\nthe  contentions of the respective counsel in great  detail,
\nhas disposed of the entire case with the following  observa-
\ntions appearing on the last page of the judgment:
\n“On the basis of the intrinsic evidence and when the ‘Corpo-
\nration’\t records,  produced on behalf  of  the\tRespondents,
\nbeing  incompatible with the rent receipts,  their  inherent
\ninconsistencies\t do not appear to us to be trust worthy,  it
\nwould  appear that the submissions of Mrs.  Paul,  regarding
\nthe character and quality of rent receipts as produced\tnow,
\nwere of substance and we also feel that the story of  tenan-
\ncies  were  subsequently sought to be  established  for\t the
\npurpose of avoiding the effect of the auction sale and\tthat
\ntoo,  not  in a bona fide manner. We are  of  the  confirmed
\nopinion\t that in terms of the determinations of the  Hon’ble
\nSupreme\t Court\tof India, as followed earlier by  a  Special
\nDivision  Bench of this court in Jagadish  Agarwalla’s\tcase
\n(supra),  this court is not so powerless to make  orders  in
\nterms of the prayers as made in the petition and that too in
\nthe  facts  of the present case and as such, we\t allow\tthis
\napplication and direct the Respondent Commissioner, to\ttake
\nsuch steps, so that, forthwith vacant possession of the said
\npremises is handed over to the petitioners i.e. the purchas-
\ners  in the auction sale. We also have it on record that  if
\nnecessary,  the Respondent Commissioner would also be  enti-
\ntled  to  take\tappropriate Police help\t and  assistance  in
\nhaving Respondent Nos. 2-8 removed from their claimed  occu-
\npation\tof  the said premises or to break open\tany  padlock
\nwhich is there or which has been put in now.”
\nIt is submitted that the High Court does not discuss why and
\nin  what respects the Corporation records  are\tinconsistent
\nwith the rent
\n311<\/span>
\nreceipts, what the inherent detects and inconsistencies were
\nin the rent receipts produced and why the story of tenancies
\nis  considered\tto  be an after thought. There\tis  also  no
\nreason\tgiven  for the rejection of  the  innumerable  other
\npieces of evidence produced by the claimants.
\n    On\tthe other hand, the complaint of Sri Kapur has\tbeen
\nthat  the claimants–Paul Brothers, in particular–had\tbeen
\nplacing\t documents  before the Courts in driblets.  Most  of
\nthese  were in the nature of Xerox copies with no  guarantee
\nof their authenticity. He points out that the entire collec-
\ntion  of receipts, purporting to be from Satyanarayan  Paul,
\nAshok  Paul  and Dilip and Mihir–not to speak\tof  Mahamaya
\nDevi–could easily have been written up for the purposes  of
\nthe case. In his submission, they have indeed been so  writ-
\nten up at one or more sittings and these are revealed by the
\ninconsistencies\t and discrepancies, some of which have\tbeen
\npointed\t out before the High Court by Mandal’s\tcounsel\t and
\nreferred in the judgment. It is unfair, argues Sri Kapur, to
\nsay that the Division Bench has not applied to the facts  of
\nthe individual cases. These having been fully brought out in
\nthe earlier parts of the judgment with special reference  to
\nthe  defects pointed out and criticisms made by the  counsel
\nfor Mandals, the High Court did not consider it necessary to
\nrepeat the same again m the concluding part of the judgment.
\nHe  says that the Division Bench had occasion to  deal\twith
\nsimilar claims in regard to various other properties and has
\nassessed the entire evidence in the light of its  experience
\nregarding the various devices employed to put forward osten-
\nsible  third parties as obstructors. The criticism that\t the
\njudgment,  High Court’s reasoning is brief and\tcryptic,  he
\nsubmits,  is  based on a total misconception and  should  be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
    Sri Kapur then drew our attention to the’ infirmities in
\nthe  case put forward by the claimants, both procedural\t and
\nsubstantive. He says that it is only in this Court, for\t the
\nfirst time, and that too, after this Court called upon\tthem
\nto  do\tso,  that the Paul Brothers have  attempted  to\t put
\nforward a chronological version of the history of tenancy of
\nthe  three shops allegedly taken on rent by  them.  Earlier,
\nthey  merely produced a few receipts and  correspondence  in
\nthe name of  Paul Brothers–a convenient label enabling them
\nto explain away documents of different dates in the names of
\ndifferent  persons  who\t were all “Pauls” and  to  create  a
\nconfusion  between  Avamoyee Paul (shown originally  in\t the
\nmunicipal records), Satyanarayan Paul and his
\n312<\/span>
\nalleged\t relatives Dilip and Mihir, and the different  Pauls
\nwho were alleged to be partners in Paul Brothers on  differ-
\nent dates. Also, many documents (such as the income-tax\t and
\ncustoms\t department  notices, assessment  and  certificates)
\nhave  been  produced in this Court and\twere  not  produced’
\nbefore\tthe High Court. Per contra, certain documents  (such
\nas the first affidavit dated 14.11.87, the 1974\t partnership
\ndeeds and a letter dated 5.4.75 from Ram Krishan Paul to the
\nlandlords) produced before the High Court have been deliber-
\nately suppressed from this Court. Sri Kapur submits that the
\nmost  crucial circumstances in the present case is that\t the
\nobjections  of Mahamaya Devi to the attachment and  sale  of
\nthe  property did not contain even the whisper of a  sugges-
\ntion  that  there were not one or two but as many  as  seven
\ntenants\t in the property. If this had been a fact, he  says,
\nshe  would  not have failed to say so  emphatically  in\t her
\nobjections. Sri Kapur points out that the basic case of\t all
\nthe  claimants is that the premises originally\tbelonged  to
\none Satyanarayan Paul, that on his death five persons inher-
\nited the property, that on partition among them the property
\ncame  to  Dilip and Mihir (mentioned,  perhaps\twrongly,  as
\nDulal  Chandra\tPaul in the affidavit of  14.11.  1987)\t who
\nconveyed  the property to Mahamaya Devi. The  whole  edifice
\ncrumbles, he points out, as even according to the  municipal
\nextracts  produced  by the claimants,  neither\tSatyanarayan
\nPaul  nor  Dilip and Mihir have been ever  recorded  as\t the
\nowners\tof the property. The version of\t undated  attornment
\nletters, partition and Prabir Kar’s letter was not attempted
\nto  be proved by producing even an affidavit from  Dilip  or
\nMihir or Prabir Kar. Even an affidavit from Mahamaya Devi is
\nconspicuous  by its absence. Above all, says Sri Kapur,\t the
\ncase of the claimants regarding the constitution and  nature
\nof business of Paul Bros. and the evidence in support there-
\nof as put forward at various stages bristles with  inaccura-
\ncies and inconsistencies which justify its rejection.  These
\nwere  pointed out before the High Court in detail  and\thave
\nbeen set out in the judgment. Some of these are as follows:
\n\t The  business has sometimes been described  as\t one
\nbusiness  (SLP\tand  affidavit of  2.11.88,)  and  sometimes
\n(affidavit of 14.11.87) as separate businesses with separate
\npartners  and  separate deeds of partnership.  The  date  of
\ncommencement  of each of these businesses have been set\t out
\ndifferently in the different affidavits and go back to 1958,
\n1959,  1962, and 1973. These do not talks with the  partner-
\nship  deeds  of 1974 which shows the  businesses  as  having
\nstarted only on 15.4.74 which in
\n313<\/span>
\nturn,  is  belied by the production of a deed of  1961.\t The
\nnames of the partners are also not given consistently. While
\nRamakrishna  Paul  is a partner of the radio  and  tailoring
\nfirms  as per the affidavit of 2.7.88, he is not one as\t per
\nthe affidavit of 14.11.87. So also K.C. Paul is a partner of
\nthe tailoring firm according ‘to 1988 affidavit but is\tnot,
\naccording to the earlier one;\n<\/p>\n
       (2)  In the affidavit dated 14.11.87,  the  claimants
\nhad  stated that they had been able to locate,\tafter  great
\neffort, a few municipal trade licences and produced eight of
\nthem. But late, r, with the second affidavit, they  produced
\na few more. How this has been done has not been explained;\n<\/p>\n
       (3)  It\tis not explained how the  electricity  bills
\nstand in the name of Taraknath Roy and D.P. Paul and how the
\nelectricity bill in the name of Paul Brothers dated  13.3.80
\nshows an electricity connection having been obtained for the
\npremises only on that date though the claimants were said to
\nhave been running the business there since 1973;\n<\/p>\n
       (4)  The telephone bills again are not helpful.\tThey
\ncontain\t the name of one M.S. Paul for which no\t explanation
\nhas  been given. One of the bills shows the installation  of
\ntelephone  in the premises even in 1958 though according  to
\nthe claimants the business in the premises started earliest,
\nonly in 1959. Also the bills give the number of the premises
\nas No. 52\/1\/1 and not 52\/1\/1B;\n<\/p>\n
       (5)   The  rent\treceipts  have\tbeen   produced\t  in
\ndriblets–six  with the affidavit of 1987  and 44  with\t the
\naffidavit  of  July 1988–while with the SLP  only  17\trent
\nreceipts  have been annexed. Some of the receipts date\tback
\nearlier than 1974 though according to the partnership deeds,
\nthe business of the firms commenced only in April 1974.\t The
\nrent  receipts bear almost continuous serial numbers.  There
\nare  several  discrepancies: for example,  a  receipt  dated
\n6.8.77\tbears no. 59 whereas one dated 10.6.77 bears no.  60
\nand  there  are two rent receipts for July  1977.  The\trent
\nreceipts in favour of Paul Bros. (Electricals) are in the
\n314<\/span>
\nname of R.K. Paul who is not a partner therein according  to
\nthe  deed and who is referred to in the Corporation  records
\nas a goldsmith. There is no rent receipt from Avamoyee\tPaul
\nor her estate and Satyanarayan Paul, Ashok Paul, Dilip\tPaul
\nor  Mihir  Paul are not recorded as owners. There is  not  a
\nsingle\taffidavit by any of the signatories to the  receipts
\nvouching for their genuineness;\n<\/p>\n
      (6i  There  is no effort by these three or  the  other
\nclaimants  to  pay the rents, after the\t attachment  of\t the
\npremises,  either  to the Commissioner or  to  the  Mandals.
\nTheir case that they did not know about the attachments\t was
\nfalse;\n<\/p>\n
      (7)  There  is no difference between the case  of\t the
\nclaimants  in  the cases of Amar Mandal and  Jagdish  Prasad
\nAgarwalla and that of the various claimants herein.
\n    We\thave  carefully considered the\tcontentions  of\t the
\nparties.  It is true that, some of the grounds of  criticism
\nof  the\t evidence  produced by the claimants  are  valid.  A
\ncertain\t amount of difficulty has been caused by the  uncer-
\ntainty\tas  the nature of the proceedings conducted  by\t the
\nHigh  Court  in\t pursuance of the order of  this  Court.  It
\nappears\t that the Court has produced to consider the  issues
\nin  a summary manner on the basis of the affidavits  of\t the
\nclaimants and on prima facie consideration of the  documents
\nformally as well as informally produced in support  thereof.
\nThe  enquiry  has been somewhat analogous to  the  procedure
\nwhich  used to be adopted in disposing of petitions  by\t ob-
\nstructors under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,  ‘(before
\nits amendment in 1976) which concluded in a tentative  find-
\ning leaving it open to the parties to file a suit and estab-
\nlish their right to possession. On the other hand, if  these
\nare taken to be in the nature of proceedings for the  execu-
\ntion of a decree under the amended code, there will have  to
\nbe a more detailed trial with full opportunity to parties to
\nlead evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses, as
\na  finding reached in these proceedings would be  final\t and
\nconclusive.  In the present case, the application  has\tbeen
\ndisposed of somewhat summarily and informally. At one stage,
\ntherefore, we were inclined to think that the matter, so far
\nas  the Pauls are concerned, should be remanded to the\tHigh
\nCourt for fresh disposal. But, on further consideration,  we
\nhave come to the
\n315<\/span>
\nconclusion  that  there\t is sufficient\tmaterial  placed  on
\nrecord by the claimants to show that Paul Bros. have been in
\nthe  premises as tenants since long and that no such  remand
\nis  necessary. Taking all the documents collectively, it  is
\ndifficult  to  say that one could reasonably arrive  at\t the
\nconclusion  that the Pauls were trespassers or\tunauthorised
\noccupants. The Mandals have done nothing positive to  estab-
\nlish this but to barely deny the genuineness of the  various
\ndocuments put forward on behalf of the claimants.
\n    One\t direct\t piece of evidence is the extract  from\t the
\nmunicipal  records.  It was suggested  that  the  photostats
\nproduced  could\t not  be relied upon and  that\tthe  entries
\ntherein could have been reproduced by some process of super-
\nimposition. However, it has been found that, apart from\t the
\nphotostat copies, the original records were summoned  certi-
\nfied extracts produced by the representative of the Corpora-
\ntion have been taken on record. These extracts which  relate
\nto the relevant period show the Paul Bros. as tenants in the
\nthree shops. It is true that the estate of Avamoyee Paul has
\nbeen shown as the landlords but the entry contains a  refer-
\nence to Mihir Paul and, admittedly, Mahamaya Devi  purchased
\nthe  property  from  Dilip and Mihir.  Letters\tcalling\t for
\nattornment  and\t rent receipts galore  have  been  produced.
\nThough one cannot eschew the possibility of these being\t got
\nup documents, some foundation must be laid by the Mandals to
\nreject\tthem other than a mere assertion that they  are\t not
\ngenuine.  The discrepancies suggested are few and minor\t and
\ndo not warrant the summary rejection of the large  number-of
\nreceipts. The electricity bills, phone bills, tax department
\ncorrespondence likewise prima facie support the claim of the
\nappellants.  The mistakes pointed out in the  telephone\t and
\nelectricity bills are insignificant. The bills are made out’
\nnot in the name of M.S. Paul but M\/s Paul Brothers and\tD.P.
\nPaul  is said to be an uncle of the Pauls.  These,  together
\nwith the partnership deeds and municipal licences and corre-
\nspondence  the\tgenuineness  of\t which\tcannot\tbe  rejected
\nstraightaway, support the claim. No doubt there is a  slight
\ndiscrepancy in that the 1961 deed is not referred to in\t the
\n1974 deeds but this cannot entail the rejection of the\t1961
\ndeed. We do not wish to elaborate on every one of the  other
\npoints made by the counsel for the Mandals. It is true\tthat
\nMahamaya  Devi did not refer to them in her  objections\t but
\nshe  was concerned about saving “her” property from  attach-
\nment and sale as that of Sanchaitas and the issue about\t her
\nhaving let out the property was irrelevant for the  decision
\nof her objections. We are satisfied that even in the face of
\nthe evidence produced
\n316<\/span>
\nbefore\tthe High Court (which has been supplemented in\tsome
\nrespects before us) it is difficult to treat the Paul  Bros.
\nas trespassers or unauthorised occupants in the property.
\n    In\tthe result, the appeals of Paul Brothers  and  Phani
\nBhusan\tGhose are allowed while those of Hari Narayan  Gupta
\nand  Dulal Chandra Dutta are rejected. We, however, make  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n317<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 796, 1990 SCR (2) 283 Author: S Rangnathan Bench: Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: PAUL BROTHERS (TAILORING DIVISION)AND ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: ASHIM KUMAR MANDAL AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/04\/1990 BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPaul Brothers (Tailoring ... vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paul Brothers (Tailoring ... vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-12T01:44:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"62 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T01:44:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\"},\"wordCount\":11454,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\",\"name\":\"Paul Brothers (Tailoring ... vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T01:44:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Paul Brothers (Tailoring ... vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paul Brothers (Tailoring ... vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-12T01:44:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"62 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990","datePublished":"1990-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T01:44:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990"},"wordCount":11454,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990","name":"Paul Brothers (Tailoring ... vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T01:44:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paul-brothers-tailoring-vs-ashim-kumar-mandal-and-ors-etc-on-2-april-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paul Brothers (Tailoring … vs Ashim Kumar Mandal And Ors. Etc on 2 April, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214350","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}