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

1951 Supreme(Ori) 54

NARASIMHAM, JAGANNADHA DAS, PANIGRAHI
NITYANANDA KANANGO – Appellant
Versus
PALA DEI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.PAL, H.C.Mukherji, H.S.RAO

JAGANNADHADAS, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS revision comes before us as a Pull Bench on a reference under Rule 4, chapter V of the Rules of this High Court. Under the said rule, taken with Rule 2, the point or points on which the Bench making the reference differed from a decision of a former Division Bench should be stated The order of reference is not specific as to what is the exact point which is referred to us. But there can be no doubt, on a perusal of the said order that wnat was intended to be referred to us, is the question "whether the ruling of the Patna High Court in 2 cut L T 49, has been correctly decided. " It is on that footing that we deal with this reference.

( 2 ) THE subject-matter of this revision is an eight-anna-share in Touzi No. 2861, which has been constituted into the separate Touzi No. 8856. The father of the petitioner before us took a mortgage of this Touzi from the then owner thereof bayed Abdui Quyyam and another on 31-12-1930. (It may be noted that the court below states that the mortgaged property is an eight-anna-share in Touzi no. 6866; but it is specifically admitted before us by the lawyers on both sides, on a reference to the documents exhibited, that w




































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