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

1997 Supreme(Pat) 828

SACHCHIDANAND JHA
Tripurari Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Most. Rajpati Devi – Respondent


Judgment

S.N.JHA, J.

1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 26-8-94 passed by the Vth Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Partition Suit No. 160 of 1981 allowing the petition of defendants Ist party under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) for inclusion of certain items of property in the written statement and the preliminary decree. The defendants by the same very petition had also prayed for deletion of certain other items of property from the preliminary decree. The Court below, however, did not accede to that prayer.

2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this revision. In fact, no argument on the factual aspect of the case was made by the counsel for either party. Arguments were made on a question of law, whether in a partition suit, after preliminary decree is passed, addition of further items of property for partition by metes and bounds is permissible or not.

3. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to add to the schedule of the properties which are subject-matter of the partition suit as ment
















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