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

1986 Supreme(Cal) 479

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, S.K.SEN
GOPAL CHANDRA MITRA – Appellant
Versus
KALIPADA DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.N.DEY, SAKTI PRASAD MUKHERJI

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE only question that has arisen for our consideration in this appeal is what should be the relevant date with reference to which the Court shall make a valuation under S. 4 (1) of the Partition Act, 1893. Under the first paragraph of S. 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, if a co-owner of an immovable property transfers his share, the transferee thereby acquires the transferor's right to joint possession and also his right to enforce partition. But the second paragraph of that Section, however, provides that if the property transferred is a share in a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family and the transferee is not a member of that family, then the transferee does not acquire any right to joint possession and all that he acquires by such transfer is only a right to enforce partition. But as a result of S. 4 of the Partition Act even that right to enforce partition may be reduced almost to a bare right to sue without a right to the share as that Section provides that in a suit for partition, whether by or against such transferee, any member of that undivided family having a share in the dwelling-house may undertake to buy the transferred sha






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