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

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 331

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
Ashwini Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishteyaque Ahmed.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, who was substituted as defendant no. 1(b) on death of his father- defendant no. 1, is aggrieved of order dated 02.07.2016 passed in Partition Suit No. 39 of 2010 by which the trial court has declined permission to file a separate written statement for taking a stand contrary to the stand of defendant no. 1 in his written statement.

2. Title Partition Suit No. 39 of 2010 was instituted by Dilip Kujur and eight others for a preliminary decree of partition claiming ½ share in schedule 'A' property. Father of the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant no. 1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are real brothers of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 4 is Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. Defendant no. 3 has filed a separate written statement resisting the prayer for partition of schedule 'A' property. During pendency of the suit the defendant no. 1 died on 05.03.2012 and his legal heirs and three of his sons including the petitioner were substituted in his place vide order dated 17.05.2012. The petitioner-defendant no. 1(b) appeared in the suit on 28.08.2015 and filed written statement with an application dated 08








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