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

2003 Supreme(Cal) 403

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA
ANUKUL CHANDRA SADHUKHAN – Appellant
Versus
AJIT KUMAR SADHUKHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ABHIJIT BANERJI, ANJAN BHATTACHARYA, ASIM MUKHOPADHYAY, JYOTIRMOY BHATTACHARYA, MANISHA BHOWMICK

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a partition suit on 16-2-1977 along with the prayer for relief under Section 4 of the indian PARTITION ACT, 1893 in respect of the purchase made by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 25-1-1977. The plaintiff alleged that the properties described in Schedule 'ka' and 'kha' of the plaint constituted their ancestral dwelling house and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased a portion of the same by the aforesaid deed dated 25-1-1977. Since the respective shares of the parties were not in dispute, so the suit was decreed in its preliminary form on contest but the petition under Section 4 of the INDIAN PARTITION ACT, 1893 as filed by the plaintiff appellant was dismissed on merits. Such dismissal by the trial Court was challenged in appeal. The Court of appeal below affirmed the said order of dismissal. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and order of dismissal of the said petition under Section 4 of the INDIAN PARTITION ACT, 1893 as filed by the plaintiff appellant. This Court for the purpose of disposal of the above appeal formulated the following substantial questions of law :" 1. Whether the co-sharer 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