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

1983 Supreme(Cal) 281

S.N.SANYAL, A.K.SEN
BHOLANATH KARMAKAR – Appellant
Versus
SAILENDRA NATH PRAMANIK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.N.BANERJI, AMIT ROY, MOTILAL AGARWALLA, S.P.ROYCHOWDHURY

ANIL K. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an appellate decree. The subject matter of challenge is the judgment and decree dated June 19, 1978, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 300 of 1975 reversing those dated Aug. 2. 1975, passed by the learned Munsif. Ghatal in Title. Suit No. 125 of 1972. That was a suit for partition and the defendant is the appellant before this court. The only question which has been agitated in this appeal before us is "as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act when the stranger purchaser has neither sued for partition nor has prayed for partition and separate allotment of the share purchased by him.

( 2 ) THE suit property consists of three plots being Dag Nos. 2010, 2011 of Khatian No. 676 and Dag No. 2012 of Khatian No. 897 of Mouza Kharar set out in Schedules Ka and Kha to the plaint. On the settlement records all those plots are non-agricultural in nature and while plot No. 2011 is the bastu or homestead plots Nos. 2010 and 2012 ore patit or waste and adjoining the said bastu. The suit property admittedly was inherited by three brothers Ram Tarak. Rammoy a


















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