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

1971 Supreme(Cal) 7

ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, M.M.DUTT
CHITTA RANJAN MONDAL – Appellant
Versus
BHUPENDRANATH DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MOHINI MOHAN MUKHERJEE, MONMOHAN MUKHERJI, SUSHIL KUMAR BISWAS

M. M. DUTT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 10 in a suit for partition. The plaintiff is a purchaser of 4 annas share of Bhupendra Nath Das and others who were admittedly co-sharers of the properties in suit. So far as the plaintiff's share is concerned, there is no dispute that the plaintiff acquired the said 4 annas share. The defendant No. 10 in his written statement submitted that he was entitled to pre-empt the plaintiff's 4 annas share Under Section 4 of the Partition Act inasmuch as the suit property was home-stead of the parties, namely, the defendant No. 10 and his co-sharers. The learned Judge framed an issue being issue No. 2 as follows:--Is the contesting defendant No. 10 entitled to get relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act?" the defendant No. 10, however, did not make any application for pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act.

( 2 ) BY his judgment dated July 20, 1964, the learned Judge determined the shares of the parties. As to issue No. 2, the learned Judge was of the view that the said issue need not be decided at that stage and that it would be decided later at the instance of the contesting defendant No. 10.

( 3 )

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