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

1953 Supreme(Cal) 40

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE
DWIJAPADA MONDAL – Appellant
Versus
BHOLANATH MONDAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BANKIM CHANDRA ROY, MANAN KUMAR GHOSH

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents who claimed one-sixth share in the properties in suit and alleged that the remaining share was owned amongst the defendants in different shares. It was admitted by both the parties that the original defendant 1, Debendra Mondal, who died during the pendency of this suit in the trial Court had eight annas share in the disputed properties. His sister's son who was a minor named Haradhan Ghose was substituted in his place.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested in the trial Court by deceased Debendra Mondal and defendants 2 and 3 their main contention being that the suit was bad for partial partition. It was also contended by them that the representation of minor Haradnan Ghose was not made in accordance with law. Some other objections were also raised by the contesting defendants in the trial Court with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. All these contentions were negatived by the trial Court and a preliminary decree for partition was made. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the lower appellate Court by defendants 2 and 3, but their appeal w








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