1

Subject – EVIDENCE LAW

TOPIC – SUKUMR CHAKRABORTY V. ASST. ASSESOR COLECETOR
,AIR 1941.CAL 181.

Supervised By:

Mr. AKHILESH PANDEY

NAME: RESHMA MALLICK

ROLL NO.: Admit card No. – 102/LLB3/17024
Class Roll. No. - 20
COURSE: LLB 3 YEAR,5th semester
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With profound gratitude and sense of indebtedness I place on record my
sincerest thanks to Mr Akhilesh Pnndey Indian Institute of Legal Studies, for
her invaluable guidance, sound advice and affectionate attitude during the
course of my studies.

I have no hesitation in saying that she molded raw clay into whatever I am
through his incessant efforts and keen interest shown throughout my academic
pursuit. It is due to his patient guidance that I have been able to complete the
task.

I would also thank the Indian institute of Legal Studies Library for the wealth of
information therein. I also express my regards to the Library staff for
cooperating and making available the books for this project research paper.

Finally, I thank my beloved parents for supporting me morally and guiding me

throughout the project work.

Date:15/10/2018 RESHMA MALLICK

TEACHER SEGNATURE
 3

In The

HIGH COURT OF INDIA

CULCUTTA

THE WRIT IS FILLED AS

Wrong and illegal and violative of the provisions both of the Calcutta
Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the W.B. Co-operative Societies Act,
1983.

IN THE MATTER OF

SUKUMR CHAKRABORTY

VS.

ASST. ASSESOR COLECETOR ,(AIR 1941.CAL 181).

Memorial field on Behalf of petitioner

 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………..………….... 05
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………........……..…..…. 06-08
5. ISSUES INVOLVED…………..……………………………………………...………09
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………10-15

7. PRAYER ………………………………………
………………………………………
 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE :

The aim and objectives of this project are to understand the concept SUKUMR
CHAKRABORTY V. ASST. ASSESOR COLECETOR ,AIR 1941.CAL 181 Critically

evaluate the role of Promoter in the Company one of the aims of the project is to
have a comparative study on the provision relating to constitutional remedies.

B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

There are certain problems that I have faced while doing the research work
on the topic SUKUMR CHAKRABORTY V. ASST. ASSESOR COLECETOR
,AIR 1941.CAL 181 The Problems basically occurred is when we understand
the different reasons behind low rate of capital formation in underdeveloped
countries. Sometimes while knowing the concept we get confused about the
capital formation with regard to underdeveloped countries.

So to avoid such problem my research topic has knowledge

based on this.

C. RESCARCH QUESTION

1. DISCUSS ABOUT SUKUMR CHAKRABORTY V. ASST. ASSESOR

COLECETOR ,AIR 1941.CAL 181 CASES.

D. RESCERCH METHODLOGY
The research in this work has been valid mainly or doctrinal, The above method
was considered apt. for the given topic ,because it a theory based topic for
which the doctrinal method of research is preferred ..

E. Mode of Citation

A uniform mode of citation has been adopted through the project.

 6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & AND
2. SC. SUPREME COURT
3. AIR. ALL INDIA REPORTER
4. SCC. SUPREME COURT CASES
5. No. NUMBER
6. Pg. PAGE
7. v./vs VERSUS
8. HC HIGH COURT
9. S. SECTION
 7

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

STATUTE REFERRED:

1. Section 79 of the W. B. Cooperative Societies Act, 1983

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

CASE REFERRED:

1. Sujata Maitra v. State of West Bengal reported in 1989 (1) CLJ 80

2. (Sankar Lal v. Narendra Bahadur Tandon)
3. (A. C. Jose v. Simon Pilliai).
4. Syed Mohedeen v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 1985 Lab IC
917
 8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

a) Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 relates to

transfer and devolution of title and mutation.
b) Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the said Act further reinforces the aforesaid
quoted Section when it reads thus:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being
in force each plot of land or house or apartment in a multi-storied
building (including the undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities) shall constitute a separate unit for the purpose of assessment of
rates and taxes to be realised by a Municipality or a Notified Area
Authority”.
c) Returning back to the main point of mutation by the Corporation, sub-
section (3) of Section 87 of the W. B. Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 runs
as follows:

“A plot of land or a house or an apartment in a multi-storied building

(including the undivided interest in the common areas and facilities) shall
constitute a heritable and transferable immoveable property within the
meaning of any law for the time being in force”.
d) Section 115- Estoppel. When a person has by his declaration, act or
omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing
to be allowed, in and such person or his representative , to deny the truth
things.
e) Section 116 estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee.
 9

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the counsel
of the respective parties. The undisputed facts are that the father of the
petitioner, Sudeb Sundar Chakraborty, since deceased, had a number of 'A' class
shares and interests in the said Plot No. 345 at Premises No.1, Gariahat Road
which was allotted to him by the Bengal Secretariat Co-operative Land
Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. And that the said Sudeb Sundar in
accordance with the provision of the W. B. Co-operative Societies Registration
Act nominated his elder son as his nominee and this nomination was duly
recorded in the register of the said Society. The said Sudeb Sundar Chakraborty
died on 19th December, 1983 when the W. B. Cooperative Societies Act, 1973
was in force. The Act of 1983 came into force on 1st August, 1987 and
according to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the W. B. Co-operative Societies
Act, 1983 notwithstanding the repeal of the W. B. Co-operative Societies Act,
1973 any right or title accrued under the Act of 1973 shall be deemed to have
taken under the W. B. Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 as if, the provisions of
this Act of 1983 were in force at all material times when such thing was done or
suffered or such action was taken. On the death of Sudeb Sundar Chakraborty
his shares and interests in the said Co-operative Society devolved upon the
petitioner according to the provisions of the Act. The letter being No. 63/87-88
dated 30th November, 1987 written by the Director-Secretary (Hony.) of the
said Co-operative Society to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Tollygunge
Tax Department, clearly stated that after the death of Sudeb Sundar Chakraborty
the son of the deceased was admitted into the membership of the Society by
virtue of nomination made by the deceased in his favour and accordingly he is
now the owner of Plot No. 345 at Premises No. 1, Gariahat Road
 10

The two charges on which he was tried, disclose the facts sufficiently for the
purpose of this appeal, and may be quoted here :

"Firstly :-the petitioner applied to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for

mutation of his name in the Corporation records in respect of the aforesaid plot
and also paid all the arrear taxesThereafter he produced the Death Certificate of
his father, the affidavit regarding legal heirs of his father, and no objection letter
from his sister and mother. By a letter dated 12th November, 1987 the
Corporation once again asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit stating that he
was the only representative of his deceased father. The petitioner again
complied with the direction and submitted affidavit according to the W. B. Co-
operative Societies Act. The Director-Secretary of the Society also by a
communication dated 30th November, 1987 wrote to the Corporation that the
petitioner is now the owner of the premises in question by virtue of the
nomination made by his deceased father. Thereafter the impugned Memo of
28th June, 1988 was received

Secondly :-Mr. Bagchi has placed Section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal
Corporation Act, 19SO relating to transfers of properties and mutation of
names, and in particular he refers to sub-section (5) of Section 183 of the Act.
He refers to Section 79 of the W. B. Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 relating to
the nomination of a person in whose favour the co-operative society shall
dispose of the share or interest of a member upon his death. He further cites
sub-section (3) of Section 87 of the said Act where the right of ownership of a
plot of land or a house or an apartment in a multistoried building shall constitute
a heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any law
for the time being in force. Section 88(1) of the said Act says that a plot of land
or house or apartment in a multi-storied building shall constitute a separate unit
for the purpose of assessment of rates and taxes to be realised by a municipality
or a notified area authority or a competent authority. On the basis of the
aforesaid provisions of the W. B. Co-operative Societies Act he submits that the
Corporation is duty bound to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of
premises No. 1/345, Gariahat Road, according to the provisions of Section 183
of C.M.C. Act. To further strengthen his arguments he cites the decision .
 11

ISSUES INVOLVED

Issue of the case:

1. Whether he or she would get absolute right to the amount due to which
the supreme court answered that upon the death of policy holder the
amount payable under the policy becomes part of the estate which has to
be governed by he law of succession and the nominee does not get
absolute right in it.
 12

PRAYER

Where the in the light of issues raised, arguments argument advanced and
authorities cited, it is humbly requested that this court may be pleased to
adjudge and :

1. Declare the case to be admissible.

The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

And pass any order or direction as the court deems fit and proper in justice,
equity and good conscience, for this the petitioner shall be duty bound.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

(counsels on behalf of the petitioner)

Date: dec. 14,2018