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

1945 Supreme(Mad) 133

Sree Rajah Mantripragada Venkataraghava Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu – Appellant
Versus
Sree Rajah Mantripragada Venkata Hanumantha Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu deceased – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The question which the Full Bench is called upon to answer is whether the Court which has passed a decree for partition to which Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies and has sent it to the Collector for the purpose of effecting the partition has power to hear objections to the order of partition actually passed. The section reads as follows:

Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Crown, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition, or the separate possession of shares of such estates.

2. In Chinna Seetayya v. Krishnavenamma I.L.R.(1896) Mad. 435, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Court had power to hear and decide, objections to the division of the estate made by the Collector under Section 265 of the Code of 1882, to which Section 54 of the present Code corresponds, and in arriving at this decision the learned Judges r








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