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

1950 Supreme(Cal) 22

HARRIES, SARKAR
Abdul Rahim Naskar – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Jabbar Naskar – Respondent


Advocates:
Shyama Charan Mitra - for Petitioner.
Sarat Chandra Janah and Binod Behari Haldar - for Opposite party.

Judgement

HARRIES, C.J. :- This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Subordinate Judge refusing to amend a plaint. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration of his title in certain land of which be claimed to be in possession. The land was described in Sch. Ka of the plaint and the plaintiff claimed a six anna interest therein. On one reading of the plaint it would appear that the plaintiff claimed an undivided six annas in the plots mentioned in the schedule. But we cannot overlook the fact that in the body of the plaint he claimed that he had been in exclusive possession of the six annas which had apparently been allotted to him on a partition. Being in exclusive possession of his share suggests that the six annas in the property mentioned in schedule Ka must have been demarcated and therefore his claim was to specific portions of each of the plots mentioned in the schedule.

2. As the case proceeded, the plaintiff realised that it would be necessary to amend the plaint in order to claim specific portions of the plots in question. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to grant the amendment asked for. He says that there is nothing in the plaint to show that the p









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