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

1937 Supreme(Cal) 288

NASIM ALI, BARTLEY
Dinesh Chandra Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Chandra Kar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Nasim Ali, J. - The opposite parties 1 and 2 in this rule purchased an occupancy holding from opposite party 16 held by him under the petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 15 and 17 to 34. On 31st December 1935, notice of the transfer u/s 26-C, Ben. Ten. Act, was served on the petitioners and opposite parties 3 to 15 only as they were stated by the purchasers to be the entire body of landlords of the holding. On 27th February 1936, the petitioners applied u/s 26-F of the Act, for preemption in the Court of the Munsiff at Nabinagar impleading therein the purchasers and the remaining co-sharer landlords who were served with notice u/s 26-C of the Act. On 28th March 1936, these co-sharer landlords applied to the Court for being transferred to the category of the petitioners for preemption. On 25th April 1936, the transferees raised the objection that the petition; for preemption was not properly constituted as there are other co-sharer landlords of the holding who had not been made parties to the proceeding. On 9th May 1936, the petitioners applied to the learned Munsiff for amending their application for pre-emption by adding these co-sharer landlords who were left out. This

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