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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 37

CHAKRABARTI, SINHA
KHUDIRAM MANDAL – Appellant
Versus
JITENDRA NATH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, Jnanendra Mohan, KISHORE MUKHARJI, S.S.MOOKERJI

CHAKRAVARTTI, J.

( 1 ) THESE Rules raise two procedural questions of some practical importance. Both are questions under S l45, Criminal P. C.

( 2 ) THE disputed property is a small piece of land, about half a cottah. in area, and includes a mud-built house standing thereon. It is really the northern adjunct to the ancestral homestead of one Bepin Behari Mondal and was purchased in the Bengali year 1327 by a deed executed in favour of one of his sons, named Jogesh. Jogesh pre-deceased his father, leaving a widow, named Surabala or Surendrabala. After the death of Bepin, his surviving sons, Jitendra Nath and Harendra Nath, appear to have made some kind of a partition of the homestead, Jitendra taking the northern portion and Harendra the southern. In June 1950, one Kshudiram, who is the Petitioner in these Rules, obtained a transfer of the disputed property from Surabala who obviously dealt , with it on the basis that it was a self-acquired property of her husband. Jitendra and Harendra dispute that claim and their case is that the property was really acquired by the father Bepin, though Harendra is not very definite. After his 'purchase, Kshudiram exercised certain acts of posses





























































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