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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 494

ARUN KUMAR JHA
Bibha Devi – Appellant
Versus
Annu Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrigendra Kumar.
For the Respondent: M/s Murari Prasad Sinha, Arun Kumar Sinha.

Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Paliganj in Title Suit No. 20 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed Title Partition Suit No. 20 of 2014 seeking following reliefs:—

“(a) Preliminary decree for partition of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the properties in suit detailed in Schedule I & II below be passed in favour of the plaintiff and by appointment of a Survey Knowing Advocate Commissioner a separate takhta of the plaintiff’s be carved out and on preparation of the final decree the plaintiff be put in possession of her separate takhta through the process of the court.

(b) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.

(c) Any

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