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

1989 Supreme(Cal) 160

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AMULYA KUMAR NANDI
KARTICK CHANDRA BASU – Appellant
Versus
SUBAL CHANDRA MANDAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bhabesh Chandra Roy, KASHI NATH DEY, Sharda Parmar

A. K. NANDI, J, J.


( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been preferred against concurrent judgments of the Courts below. In a suit for partitian by a co-sharer both the Courts below granted him a decree for pre-emption under Section 4, Partition Act.

( 2 ) THE property comprised of two rooms, one on the Ground Floor and another on the First Floor, and a chalaghar on a piece of land measuring 3 decimals only.

( 3 ) THE property originally belonged to one Sashi Bhusan Mondal who died leaving behind him two sons, the plaintiff and Kanai Charan Mondal. Kanai died leaving his son Amarnath. Amarnath sold his eight annas share to defendants on 13. 7. 63. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition and pre-emption.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the property was recorded in the record of right as bastu comprising two rooms and a chalaghar. In the deed of purchase of the defendants the property has been described as bastu. There is no dispute that the property originally belonged to Sashibhusan who died leaving behind him the plaintiff and Kanaicharan. It is not disputed that Sashi's original homestead was swept away by flood in 1320 B. S. and that he lived in this suit homestead thereafter. Evidently the def












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