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

1963 Supreme(Cal) 160

D.N.SINHA, A.C.SENGUPTA
Satyendu Kundu – Appellant
Versus
Amar Nath Ghosh – Respondent


Advocates:
S.C. Jana and Arun Kumar Jana, for Appellant; P.N, Mitra, A. Sen and K. Banerjee, for Respondents.

Judgement

SINHA, J. : - This is an appeal against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah, affirming an order of Ins learned Additional Subordinate judge, Howrah, made under Section 4 of the Partition Act IV of 1893. (hereinafter referred to as the Said Act). The facts in this case are briefly as follows : One Debendra Math Ghosh became the owner of house and premises No. 154, Panchanantola Road, at present known as premises No. 74, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Howrah. The house is two-storeyed, situated on land of the area of about 1 cottah 14 chittaks. There are two big rooms and one small room on the first floor and a corresponding number of rooms with one verandah on the ground floor. It is necessary here to set out the genealogical table of Debendra Nath Ghosh and his descendants.

2. It will appear from the genealogical table set out that Debendra had one son and seven daughters. The son Jnanendra, has a son named Amar Ghosh. Deberidra died in February, 1957. Both Jnanendra and Amar Shosh are alive. It has been found as a fact by the Courts below that Debendra, together with his large family was in actual possession of the entire premises uptil the year 1943-44. Sinc































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