Second Appeal dismissed. Held no substantial question of law as concurrent findings confirm separate possession of dwelling house portions, barring eviction under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 44.
Second Appeal No. 89 of 2025 dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
D/L.3. January 19, 2026. MNS.
SA No. 89 of 2025
Pravakar Goswami and others Vs. Ramkrishna Goswami and others
Mr. Saurabh Guha Thakurta, Ms. Ipsita Ghosh
… for the appellants.
2
plaintiffs and the defendants reside in their separate portions of the said dwelling house.
3
the 1882 Act simpliciter a decree of eviction can be obtained.
Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit property can be classified as a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family given separate possession of portions.
Whether eviction of a subsequent purchaser can be granted under the proviso to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Whether a substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal regarding the eviction suit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pravakar Goswami and others
Ramkrishna Goswami and others
Supratim Bhattacharya
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
