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

1983 Supreme(Cal) 284

CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, N.G.CHAUDHURI
DHIRENDRA NATH SADHUKHAN – Appellant
Versus
TINKARI SADHUKHAN – Respondent


CHAUDHURI, J.

( 1 ) ONE Kiron Bala Dassi was the owner of the property in question namely, a dwelling house in 107, Panchanantala Road, P. S. Bally. She sold the undivided eastern half of the house by a Kobala to Uttam and Amulya Sadhukhan. By a second Kobala she sold the western half of the said house to aforesaid Amulya and his wife's brother Sudhanya Sadhukhan. Subsequently Uttam sold his share in the property to Amulya who has since died. Sudhanya has sold his share in the property to the appellant.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS, as heirs of Amulya, brought a suit for partition and a decree in preliminary form has been passed declaring their 12 annas share and appellants 4 annas share in the suit property, overruling the appellants plea of previous partition. Subsequent thereto respondents filed a petition under section 4 of the partition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for purchasing the share of the appellant on the footing that he was a stranger-purchaser in relation to the dwelling house which belonged to undivided family. The learned court below has allowed the said petition dismissing appellants contention that Amulya and Subhanya did not constitute an 'undivided fam







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