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

1962 Supreme(Cal) 146

C.N.LAIK, R.S.BACHAWAT
LALCHAND BHUR – Appellant
Versus
SUSHILA SUNDARI DASSI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.N.GANGULY, G.MITTER, R.C.DE, RATHIN DEB

BACHAWAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants Lalchand Bhur and Kalachand Bhur against the decree declaring that a consent decree passed in Suit No. 1493 of 1942 except Clauses 7 (a), 7 (b), 8 (ii) (a) (b) and 9 and 11 thereof are no more applicable or of any effect or executable or binding upon the plaintiff Sushila Sundari Dassi and consequential reliefs. One Bamacharan Bhur, a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga Law died in 1905 leaving behind him substantial properties and his widow Sushila Sundari as his heir. In 1942 Lalchand a reversioner to the estate of Bamacharan instituted a suit against Sushila Sundari impleading as parties to the suit all other immediate and remote reversioners to the estate of Bamacharan and also the deity Sri Sri Brojokishore Jew claiming, inter alia, a declaration that Lalchand and certain other persons were the then reversioners entitled to succeed to the estate of Bamacharan on the death of Sushila Sundari, an injunction restraining Sushila Sundari for mismanaging, wasting or otherwise wrongfully dealing with or disposing of the estate of Bamacharan to the prejudice of the rights of the reversioners, a declaration that a property standing in the








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