SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Pat) 40

S.C.MISRA, A.B.N.SINHA
Lilju Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Devi – Respondent


Judgment

S.C.Misra, J.

1. These two appeals have been heard together. They arise out of a partition suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for carving out of her share in the joint family properties. The appeal is by the defendants including Nos. 6 and 7 Ram Chandra Prasad and Bindeshwari Prasad. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 53 of 1960 is directed against the award filed by the arbitrators in the suit in which reference was made by the learned Subordinate Judge and the first Appeal No. 56 of 1960 is directed against a decree on the basis of the award. It is" not necessary to set out the facts of these appeals in detail because the appeals can be disposed of on one simple ground, which alone has been pressed before us by learned counsel for the appellants.

2. It has been contended that the reference to the arbitrators was made by the Court at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendants other than appellants 6 and 7 who were under the guardianship of Kadamlal Mandal appellant No. 4 their father. It is true that Kadamlal Mandal made the application for reference of the dispute between the parties to arbitration joining with other defendants and signed the petition for himself as also













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top