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

1981 Supreme(Cal) 88

B.C.CHAKRABARTI, A.K.SEN
RANJANI BALA RAKSHIT – Appellant
Versus
BISWANATH RAKSHIT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.P.BAGCHI, SNEHANAN DINDA, SUSHANTA KUMAR CHATTERJEE

B. C. CHAKRABARTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revi-sional application is at the instance of the plaintiff of T. S. No. 18 of 1967 of the 3rd Court of learned Subordinate Judge at Howrah. The suit is for partition upon a declaration that a document purported to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants 3, 4 and 5, dated the 29th July, 1955 is fraudulent, collusive and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The specific allegations in regard to that document, we shall come to hereafter in some details. The suit was decreed in a preliminary form by the Ld. trial Judge. Being aggrieved, defendants 3, 4 and 5 preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 88 of 1978 of the 2nd Court of the Ld. Additional District Judge, Howrah. The Ld. appellate Judge, instead of entering into the merits of the appeal made an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code. He framed an additional issue as follows:-- "is the suit so far as the Kha schedule property is concerned properly classified for valuation?" and remitted the suit to the Ld. trial Court for determination of the said issue with a direction to demand additional court-fees on such determination if necessary, with liberty to the plaintif



















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