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

1996 Supreme(Cal) 156

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI
SANKARI MAITY – Appellant
Versus
BIRENDRA NATH MAITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
NILMONI DAS, SUBRATA ROY KARMAKAR, Tapan Kumar Dutta

B. PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THE instant revisional application is directed against an order No. 96 dated 5th August, 1991 passed by the 3rd Munsif, Howrah in T. S. 55 of 1971 allowing the application filed by the opposite party under section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and consequently dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The petitioner who was eventually the plaintiff in the Title Suit 55 of 1971 had filed the suit for partition and for account. The suit was preliminary decreed and thereafter the opposite party had preferred an appeal before the appellate court in title appeal 126 of 1972. The said title appeal was transferred to the learned Second Additional District Judge at Howrah who dismissed the appeal, inter alia, holding that the plaintiff and the defendants are the co-sharers. After the dismissal of the appeal the defendant chose not to file any second appeal before this court and allowed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court as conclusive. The plaintiff filed an application to pass final decree in terms of the direction given in the preliminary decree. At that stage the defendant had filed an application on
























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