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

2001 Supreme(Cal) 522

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA
Soumen Paul – Appellant
Versus
Babulal Rojha – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
S.C. Debnath, R.N. Dutta for the petitioner;
Bidyut Banerjee, Sila Sankar for the opposite party.

JUDGMENT

Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.

1. An application under section 4 of the Partition Act in a pending partition suit whether would be hit or not by Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the subject matter for consideration in this revisional application.

2. The facts of this case for the present purpose are stated as under. One Sibapada Paul filed a suit for partition against the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant/petitioner of this revisional application. The said suit was registered as Title Suit (Partition) No. 44 of 1981. The said suit was for partition of a joint family dwelling house being premises No. 8D. Akrur Dutta Lane. It was alleged in the said partition suit that the aforesaid joint family dwelling house namely premises No. 8D, Akrur Dutta Lane belonged to Sibapada Paul and Nader Chandra Paul, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant in majority shares. During the pendency of the aforesaid partition suit said Sibapada Paul allegedly entered into an agreement on 23rd December, 1986 with the opposite parties herein namely Babulal Rojha, Gogen Rojha, Gorachand Rojha and Gobinda Rojha for sale of his share in the said premises. On his death his wife, namely Smt

















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