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

1989 Supreme(Cal) 422

BABOO LALL JAIN
KUSUM DEBI JHINJHANI – Appellant
Versus
PUSHPA DEVI KHURDA – Respondent


BABOO LALL JAIN, J.


( 1 ) THE plaintiff and the defendant are two sisters, Ram Kumar Changil, father of the parties, died intestate on 12th day of January, 1978. The two daughters, who are the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit are the only heiresses and/or legal representatives under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The suit as initially instituted was for partition of several other assets also and for claiming an equal half share in all the properties and assets left by the said deceased.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendant were and are entitled to one equal half share each in the properties left by the said deceased excepting two items of property as mentioned hereunder. The parties are also agreeable that a decree be passed for partition of all such assets mentioned in the said Schedule `a' and B', save and except the said two items as mentioned hereunder :-1. Seven shares in Embassy Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-700017. 2. All that the flat bearing No. 3 C on the 3rd floor of the building known as Embassy building at No. 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-17, containing an area of 1250 sq. ft. and comprising






























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